This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

62576 

Vol. 79, No. 202 

Monday, October 20, 2014 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

13 CFR Part 121 

RIN 3245–AG51 

Small Business Size Standards; 

Industries With Employee Based Size 

Standards Not Part of Manufacturing, 

Wholesale Trade, or Retail Trade; 

Correction 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This notice makes corrections 

to the proposed rule that appeared in 

the Federal Register on September 10, 

2014, entitled Small Business Size 

Standards; Industries with Employee 

Based Size Standards Not Part of 

Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade, or 

Retail Trade. This document corrects 

several incorrect figures in the preamble 

text. 

DATES: These corrections are effective 

October 20, 2014. Comments on the 

proposed rule published September 10, 

2014 at 79 FR 53646, continue to be 

accepted until November 10, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jorge Laboy-Bruno, Ph.D., Economist, 

Size Standards Division, (202) 205–6618 

or sizestandards@sba.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) is correcting a 

proposed rule that appeared in the 

Federal Register on September 10, 2014 

(79 FR 53646). The document proposed 

to modify the size standards for a 

number of industries that are not part of 

North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) Sector 31–33 

(Manufacturing), Sector 42 (Wholesale 

Trade), or Sector 44–45 (Retail Trade). 

The document included a proposal to 

eliminate the Offshore Marine Air 

Transportation Services ‘‘exception’’ 

under NAICS 481211 and 481212 and 

the Offshore Marine Services 

‘‘exception’’ under NAICS Subsector 

483 and their $30.5 million receipts 

based size standard. The proposed 

changes included removing Footnote 15 

and Footnote 18 from the table of size 

standards. However, where the 

supplementary information of the 

proposed rule refers to the Offshore 

Marine ‘‘exception’’ under NAICS 

481211 and 481212, and under NAICS 

Subsector 483, it incorrectly states that 

$28 million is the current size standard. 

In addition, where the supplementary 

information of the proposed rule refers 

to the Information Technology Value 

Added Reseller (ITVAR) ‘‘exception’’ 

under NAICS 541519, it incorrectly 

states that the $25.5 million is the 

current size standard. SBA had 

increased all monetary based size 

standards for inflation, including these, 

effective July 14, 2014 (79 FR 33647). 

Because of the increase for inflation, the 

correct size standard in the 

supplementary information to the 

September 10, 2014 proposed rule that 

read $28 million referenced above 

should have read $30.5 million. 

Similarly, because of the increase for 

inflation, the correct size standard in the 

discussion of eliminating Footnote 18 

and the ITVAR ‘‘exception’’ in the 

supplementary information to the 

September 10, 2014 proposed rule that 

read $25.5 million should have read 

$27.5 million. This action corrects the 

above stated size standards for these 

‘‘exceptions.’’ 

Correction of Errors 

In FR Doc. 2014–20838 of September 

10, 2014, (79 FR 53646) make the 

following corrections: 

1. On page 53647, in the Summary 

section, first column, first partial 

paragraph, in line 21, the figure ‘‘$28’’ 

is corrected to read ‘‘$30.5’’. 

2. On page 53656, 

a. First column, first paragraph, in 

line 18, the figure ‘‘$25.5’’ is corrected 

to read ‘‘$27.5’’. 

b. First column, third paragraph, in 

line 12, the figure ‘‘$25.5’’ is corrected 

to read ‘‘$27.5’’. 

c. Third column, first partial 

paragraph, line 2, the figure ‘‘$25.5’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘$27.5’’. 

d. Third column, first paragraph, in 

line 5, the figure ‘‘$25.5’’ is corrected to 

read ‘‘$27.5’’. 

e. Third column, second paragraph, 

(1) In line 3, the figure ‘‘$25.5’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘$27.5’’. 

(2) In line 8, the figure ‘‘$25.5’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘$27.5’’. 

3. On page 53658, third column, first 

partial paragraph under the heading 

‘‘Offshore Marine Air Transportation 

Services and Offshore Marine Services’’, 

in the line 4, the figure ‘‘$28’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘$30.5’’. 

4. On page 53659, 

a. First column, first paragraph, 

(1) In line 7, the figure ‘‘$28’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘$30.5’’. 

(2) In line 10, the figure ‘‘$28’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘$30.5’’. 

b. Second column, first partial 

paragraph, in line 4, the figure ‘‘$28’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘$30.5’’. 

c. Second column, second paragraph, 

(1) In line 13, the figure ‘‘$28’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘30.5’’. 

(2) In line 19, the figure ‘‘$28’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘$30.5’’. 

d. Third column, first paragraph, 

(1) In line 3, the figure ‘‘$28’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘30.5’’. 

(2) In line 12, the figure ‘‘$28’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘$30.5’’. 

5. On page 53660, first column, first 

paragraph, in line 19, the figure ‘‘$28’’ 

is corrected to read ‘‘$30.5’’. 

6. On page 53661, third column, first 

paragraph, in line 17, the figure ‘‘$28’’ 

is corrected to read ‘‘$30.5’’. 

7. On page 53662, third column, 

a. First partial paragraph, in line 4, 

the figure ‘‘$25.5’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘$27.5’’. 

b. In the first paragraph (numbered 

paragraph 5), 

(1) In line 9, the figure ‘‘$28’’ million 

is corrected to read ‘‘$30.5’’ million. 

(2) In line 17, the figure ‘‘$28’’ million 

is corrected to read ‘‘$30.5’’ million. 

(3) In line 23, the figure ‘‘$28’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘$30.5’’. 

Kenneth W. Dodds, 

Director, Office of Government Contracting. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24503 Filed 10–17–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL 

DEVELOPMENT 

22 CFR Part 237 

RIN 0412–AA64 

Environmental Compliance Procedures 

for Domestic Activities 

AGENCY: United States Agency for 

International Development. 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 202 / Monday, October 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62577 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The United States Agency for 

International Development (USAID) 

proposes a rule to establish 

environmental compliance procedures 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). This proposed rule 

is applicable to all USAID activities, 

both program and operating expense 

(OE) funded, that occur within the 

United States, its territories and or 

possessions. Program funded activities 

that occur entirely outside of the United 

States, its territories and possessions 

undergo environmental impact 

assessment and compliance review 

under separate regulatory authority. 

This rule will ensure that the 

environmental consequences of USAID 

actions are considered prior to funding 

in accordance with NEPA. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

December 19, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments 

concerning this proposed rule to Dennis 

Durbin, M/MPBP/POL, USAID/

Washington, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20523. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dennis Durbin, Telephone: 202–712– 

0789, Email: ddurbin@usaid.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Comment Procedures 

II. Background 

III. Procedural Matters 

I. Public Comment Procedures 

How do I comment on the proposed 

rule? 

• Because security screening 

precautions have slowed the delivery 

and dependability of surface mail to 

USAID/Washington, USAID 

recommends sending all comments by 

electronic mail or by fax to the email 

address or fax number listed directly 

below (please note, all comments must 

be in writing to be reviewed). You may 

submit written electronic comments by 

sending electronic mail [email] to: 

ddurbin@usaid.gov. Please submit 

comments as a Microsoft Word file 

avoiding the use of any special 

characters and any form of encryption. 

• Surface Mail (again, not advisable 

due to security screening): Dennis 

Durbin, M/MPBP/POL, USAID/

Washington, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20523. 

Please make your written comments 

on the proposed rule as specific as 

possible, confine them to issues 

pertinent to the proposed rule, and 

explain the reason for any changes you 

recommend. Where possible, your 

comments should reference the specific 

section or paragraph of the proposal that 

you are addressing. 

USAID may not necessarily consider 

or include in the Administrative Record 

for the final rule comments that USAID 

receives after the close of the comment 

period (see DATES) or comments 

delivered to an address other than those 

listed above (see ADDRESSES). 

II. Background 

Why is USAID proposing this rule? 

The procedures set forth in this 

proposal ensure that USAID actions and 

expenditures comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

Public Law 91–190 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq., as implemented by the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 

1508). These procedures apply 

specifically to Agency actions 

undertaken in the United States, its 

territories or possessions. It is USAID 

policy to ensure that the environmental 

and social consequences of USAID 

financed activities are identified and 

considered by USAID prior to a final 

decision to proceed and that appropriate 

environmental safeguards are adopted. 

Do USAID overseas activities undergo 

environmental review? 

Yes. USAID environmental 

compliance for Agency program funded 

activities pursuant to the Foreign 

Assistance Act and the Agricultural 

Trade Development and Assistance Act 

of 1954 (Pub. L. 83–480, enacted July 

10, 1954) which address such basic 

problems as hunger, malnutrition, 

overpopulation, disease, disaster, 

governance, economic growth, energy 

security, climate change, deterioration 

of the environment and the natural 

resource base, illiteracy, and the lack of 

adequate housing and transportation, 

and to facilitate economic development 

is addressed under 22 CFR part 216. The 

existing rule for overseas activities 

together with this proposal for domestic 

activities will ensure environmental 

stewardship for USAID activities. 

What type of activities does the 

proposed rule cover? 

These proposed NEPA implementing 

procedures for considering the 

environmental consequences apply to 

all proposed Agency activities in the 

United States, its territories or 

possessions (hereinafter domestic 

activities). These activities include 

domestic activities such as building 

operations, acquisition and operation of 

fleet vehicles, personnel salary and 

administration, procurement of supplies 

and services, USAID facility 

construction and maintenance, payment 

of rent and utilities, general USAID 

internal operations and administration, 

and other OE funded activities. 

III. Procedural Matters 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

These proposed regulations are not a 

significant regulatory action and are not 

subject to review by Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866. These proposed 

regulations will not have an effect of 

$100 million or more on the economy. 

They will not adversely affect in a 

material way the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local, 

or tribal governments or communities. 

These proposed regulations will not 

create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency. These 

proposed regulations do not alter the 

budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, 

user fees, or loan programs or the right 

or obligations of their recipients; nor do 

they raise novel legal or policy issues. 

Clarity of the Regulations 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write regulations that are 

simple and easy to understand. 

President Clinton’s Presidential 

memorandum of June 2, 1998, requires 

us to write new regulations in plain 

language. We invite your comments on 

how to make these proposed regulations 

easier to understand, including answers 

to questions such as the following: (1) 

Are the requirements in the proposed 

regulations clearly stated? (2) Do the 

proposed regulations contain technical 

language or jargon that interferes with 

their clarity? (3) Does the format of the 

proposed regulations (grouping and 

order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their 

clarity? (4) Would the regulations be 

easier to understand if they were 

divided into more (but shorter) sections? 

(A section appears in bold type and is 

preceded by the symbol and a numbered 

heading, for example) (5) Is the 

description of the proposed regulations 

in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this preamble helpful in 

understanding the proposed 

regulations? How could this description 

be more helpful in making the proposed 

regulations easier to understand? 

Please send any comments you have 

on the clarity of the regulations to the 

address specified in the ADDRESSES

section. 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
62578 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 202 / Monday, October 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Congress enacted the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, 5 

U.S.C. 601–612, to ensure that 

Government regulations do not 

unnecessarily or disproportionately 

burden small entities. The RFA requires 

a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule 

would have a significant economic 

impact, either detrimental or beneficial, 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The proposed rule would 

impact approximately 50 USAID 

partners per year where their proposed 

activities would undergo the procedural 

NEPA requirements under this proposal. 

Most of these entities would be 

academic institutions in the United 

States who partner with foreign entities 

for research and provision of 

development assistance. USAID foreign 

assistance actions are already reviewed 

for environmental compliance under the 

procedures in 22 CFR part 216. The 

NEPA compliance procedures stated in 

this proposal are not substantially 

different from those USAID undertakes 

from the environmental compliance 

procedures USAID under 22 CFR part 

216. Therefore, we have determined 

under the RFA that this proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

These proposed regulations do not 

impose an unfunded mandate on State, 

local, or tribal governments or the 

private sector of more than $100 million 

per year; nor do these proposed 

regulations have a significant or unique 

effect on State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference With 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights (Takings) 

The proposed rule does not represent 

a government action capable of 

interfering with constitutionally 

protected property rights. Therefore, we 

have determined that the rule would not 

cause a taking of private property or 

require further discussion of takings 

implications under this Executive 

Order. 

Executive Order 12612, Federalism 

The proposed rule will not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with Executive Order 12612, 

we have determined that this proposed 

rule does not have sufficient Federalism 

implications to warrant preparation of a 

Federalism Assessment. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

These regulations do not contain 

information collection requirements that 

the Office of Management and Budget 

must approve under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq. 

Author 

The principal author of this rule is 

Dennis Durbin, United States Agency 

for International Development. 

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 237 

Environmental impact statements, 

Environmental protection, Pesticides 

and pests. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the United States Agency for 

International Development proposes to 

add 22 CFR part 237 as follows: 

PART 237—NATIONAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT 

IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES 

Sec. 

237.1 Introduction. 

237.2 Scope. 

237.3 Definitions. 

237.4 Responsibilities of Agency officials. 

237.5 Applicability of procedures. 

237.6 Procedures. 

237.7 Pesticide procedures. 

237.8 Genetically modified organisms. 

237.9 Endangered species. 

237.10 Filing and publishing. 

237.11 Public hearings. 

237.12 Records and reports. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347. 

§ 237.1 Introduction. 

(a) The procedures set forth in these 

regulations ensure that the United States 

Agency for International Development 

(USAID) actions and expenditures 

comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq., as implemented by 

the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 

through 1508). These procedures apply 

specifically to Agency actions 

undertaken in the United States, its 

territories or possessions. 

(b) USAID environmental compliance 

for Agency program funded activities 

pursuant to the Foreign Assistance Act 

and the Agricultural Trade Development 

and Assistance Act of 1954 (Pub. L. 83– 

480) which address such basic problems 

as hunger, malnutrition, 

overpopulation, disease, disaster, 

governance, economic growth, energy 

security, climate change, deterioration 

of the environment and the natural 

resource base, illiteracy, and the lack of 

adequate housing and transportation, 

and to facilitate economic development 

is addressed under 22 CFR part 216. 

Together, these two regulations ensure 

environmental stewardship for USAID 

activities. 

(c) It is USAID policy to ensure that 

the environmental and social 

consequences of USAID financed 

activities are identified and considered 

by USAID prior to a final decision to 

proceed and that appropriate 

environmental safeguards are adopted. 

§ 237.2 Scope. 

These NEPA implementing 

procedures for considering the 

environmental consequences apply to 

all proposed Agency activities in the 

United States, its territories or 

possessions (hereinafter domestic 

activities). These activities include 

domestic activities such as building 

operations, acquisition and operation of 

fleet vehicles, personnel salary and 

administration, procurement of supplies 

and services, USAID facility 

construction and maintenance, payment 

of rent and utilities, general USAID 

internal operations and administration, 

and other OE funded activities. 

§ 237.3 Definitions. 

For the purposes of this part, the 

following definitions apply: 

Action. Action and Major Federal 

Action as described in 40 CFR 1508.18. 

Adaptive Management. The ongoing 

process during implementation of an 

activity where the Implementing Officer 

(COR, AOR, or equivalent) manages the 

activity or action to the mitigation 

measures and Environmental 

Management and Monitoring Plan that 

have been developed under the 

Environmental Assessment or 

Environmental Impact Statement; and, 

makes formal adjustments and 

amendments, in conjunction with the 

Environmental Assessment or 

Environmental Impact Statement 

signatory, as needed to ensure optimal 

environment soundness throughout the 

life of the activity. 

Administrator. The head or acting 

head of the U.S. Agency for 

International Development. The final 

decision-making executive on 

Environmental Impact Statements. 

Agency. The United States Agency for 

International Development. Also 

referred to as USAID. 

Agency Environmental Coordinator 

(AEC). USAID’s executive management 

officer whose duties include oversight 

of the Agency’s compliance with US 

environmental laws, regulations, and 

directives, including this Regulation 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 202 / Monday, October 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62579 

and its companion for program funded 

activities, 22 CFR part 216. 

Alternative Arrangements. Where 

emergency circumstances make it 

necessary to take an action with 

significant environmental impact 

without observing the provisions of this 

Regulation and the White House 

Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) regulations, USAID shall consult 

with the CEQ about Alternative 

Arrangements. USAID and CEQ will 

limit such arrangements to actions 

necessary to control the immediate 

impacts of the emergency. 

Bureau Environment Officer (BEO). 

The USAID senior environmental 

regulatory officer for a given Bureau or 

Independent Office. Each operational 

Bureau or Independent Office has a BEO 

who oversees environmental 

compliance under this Regulation for all 

Operating Expense Activities in their 

Bureau or Independent Office. This 

expert environmental compliance 

officer typically also oversees 

compliance in their Bureau or 

Independent Office on program funded 

activities under 22 CFR part 216. They 

are appointed in writing by an Assistant 

Administrator or an Independent Office 

Director with the concurrence of the 

AEC. 

Categorical exclusion. Categorical 

exclusions (CEs) describe categories of 

actions which meet the definition 

contained in 40 CFR 1508.4, and, based 

on past experience with similar actions, 

do not normally involve significant 

environmental impacts. 

Connected actions. Actions which 

may or may not be funded by USAID 

but which are closely related and 

therefore should be discussed in the 

same USAID Environmental Assessment 

or Environmental Impact Statement. 

Actions are connected if they: 

(1) Automatically trigger other actions 

which may require Environmental 

Impact Statements by USAID or other 

agencies; 

(2) Cannot or will not proceed unless 

other actions are taken previously or 

simultaneously; or 

(3) Are interdependent parts of a 

larger action and depend on the larger 

action for their justification. Under 22 

CFR part 216 this same concept is 

typically referred to as Associated 

Facilities. 

Cooperating Agency. Any Federal 

agency other than a lead agency which 

has jurisdiction by law or special 

expertise with respect to any 

environmental impact involved in a 

proposal (or a reasonable alternative) for 

legislation or other major Federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment. Also, a State or 

local agency of similar qualifications or, 

when the effects are on a reservation, an 

Indian Tribe, may by agreement with 

the lead agency become a cooperating 

agency. 

Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ). The White House Council in the 

Executive Office of the President that 

among other duties oversees National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

compliance across all Executive Branch 

agencies; develops Executive Branch 

agency-wide policy and regulations for 

implementing the procedural provisions 

of NEPA; and resolves interagency 

disagreements concerning proposed 

major Federal actions. 

Cumulative impact. The impact on 

the environment which results from the 

incremental impact of the action when 

added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions 

regardless of what agency (Federal or 

non-Federal) or person undertakes such 

other actions. Cumulative impacts can 

result from individually minor but 

collectively significant actions taking 

place over a period of time. 

DEIS. Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (see Environmental Impact 

Statement). 

Environment. Environment shall be 

interpreted comprehensively to include 

the natural and physical environment 

and the relationship of people with that 

environment. When an environmental 

impact statement is prepared and 

economic or social and natural or 

physical environmental effects are 

interrelated, then the environmental 

impact statement will discuss all of 

these effects on the human 

environment. 

Environmental Assessment (EA). EA 

is defined in the CEQ regulations (40 

CFR 1508.9), and is used to assess the 

environmental impact of proposed 

actions where a categorical exclusion is 

not appropriate and in which the 

potential for significant environmental 

impacts are not clearly established. 

When an EA is performed resulting in 

a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI), the environmental review 

process is completed. If the EA process 

results in a finding that the proposed 

activity will incur significant 

environmental impact an Environmental 

Impact Statement must be prepared. 

Note that the term EA in this regulation 

differs from that in 22 CFR part 216 and 

they should not be confused or 

conflated. 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS). An EIS is defined in the CEQ 

Regulations at 40 CFR 1508.11 and is a 

detailed study of the reasonably 

foreseeable environmental and social 

impacts, both positive and negative, of 

a proposed USAID action that results in 

a significant impact on the United 

States, or the global commons. 

Environmental justice. The fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of EAs and EIAs that 

their related actions. Fair treatment 

means that no group of people, 

including racial, ethnic, or 

socioeconomic groups, should bear a 

disproportionate share of the negative 

environmental consequences resulting 

from USAID actions. 

Environmental Monitoring and 

Management Plan (EMMP). An EMMP is 

based on the findings of an EA or EIS 

and describes the activity or process of 

the activity associated with an 

environmental impact and associated 

mitigation measures and conditions to 

serve as environmental safeguards and 

monitoring requirements. They are an 

everyday road map used by the COR or 

AOR or comparable USAID officer and 

by the grantee or contractor to ensure 

environmental soundness throughout 

the life of an action. EMMPs are a 

mechanism to identify when 

environmental issues begin to arise 

during the implementation of an action 

to ensure they are addressed before they 

become a problem. 

EPA or USEPA—the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. An 

independent agency in the Executive 

Branch of the United States government 

that is among other duties is responsible 

for supporting CEQ’s implementation of 

NEPA under the EPA Office of Federal 

Activities; and for leading the US 

government’s pesticide registration, 

safety, enforcement, and regulatory 

functions. 

FEIS. Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (See Environmental Impact 

Statement). 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI). A document briefly providing 

the reasons why a proposed action will 

not have a significant impact on the 

environment and for which an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

will not be prepared. In cases when 

environmental impacts are small and 

easily mitigated, a Mitigated FONSI may 

be appropriate and will identify the 

mitigative measures and funding 

requirements. 

Impact (Effect). A direct result of an 

action which occurs at the same time 

and place; or an indirect result of an 

action which occurs later in time or in 

a different place and is reasonably 

foreseeable; or the cumulative results 

from the incremental impact of the 

action when added to other past, 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
62580 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 202 / Monday, October 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions regardless of what agency 

or person undertakes such other actions 

(40 CFR 1508.8). 

Implementing Officer. The Contracts 

Officer Representative (COR), or 

Agreements Officer Representative 

(AOR) or comparable USAID officer 

who manages a given contract, grant, 

lease or similar agreement. The 

Implementing Officer has the primary 

responsibility for ensuring compliance 

with this Regulation of Operating 

Expense funded activities they manage. 

No Action Alternative. The alternative 

where current conditions and trends are 

projected into the future without 

another proposed action (40 CFR 

1502.14(d)). 

Record of Decision (ROD). A concise 

public document that records USAID’s 

decision(s) concerning a proposed 

action for which the Agency has 

prepared an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). The ROD is prepared in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Council on Environmental Quality 

NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1505.2). A 

ROD identifies the alternatives 

considered in reaching the decision, the 

environmentally preferable 

alternative(s), factors balanced by the 

agency in making the decision, whether 

all practicable means to avoid or 

minimize environmental harm have 

been adopted, and if not, why they were 

not. (See Environmental Impact 

Statement). 

Responsible Action Officer. The 

Agency officer principally responsible 

for the approval of action memoranda, 

authorization of funds, and similar 

documents relating to a given Agency 

action to which by these regulations 

apply. They are normally the Assistant 

Administrator of a Bureau, Director of 

an Independent Office, or Director of a 

USAID Country Mission. 

Scoping. An early and open process 

for determining the extent and variety of 

issues to be addressed and for 

identifying the significant issues related 

to a proposed action (40 CFR 1501.7). 

Significantly. ‘‘Significantly’’ as used 

in NEPA requires considerations of 

social, spatial and temporal context and 

intensity: 

(1) Context. This means that the 

significance of an action must be 

analyzed in several contexts such as 

society as a whole (human, national), 

the affected region, the affected 

interests, and the locality. Significance 

varies with the setting of the proposed 

action. For instance, in the case of a sitespecific action, significance would 

usually depend upon the effects in the 

locale rather than in the world as a 

whole. Both short- and long-term effects 

are relevant. 

(2) Intensity. This refers to the 

severity of the environmental impact. 

USAID. The United States Agency for 

International Development. An 

independent agency in the Executive 

Branch of the United States government 

responsible for leading international 

development programs. 

§ 237.4 Responsibilities of Agency 

officials. 

(a) General. Each Bureau or 

Independent Office within the Agency 

shall be responsible for: 

(1) Implementing these regulations 

early and incorporating them into its 

normal decision-making and activity 

management processes; 

(2) Providing adequate funding, staff 

resources and sufficient time to 

complete required environmental 

impact assessment work under this 

Regulation prior to obligation of funds, 

and implement any needed actions to 

ensure environmental soundness 

throughout the life of the activity. 

(b) Responsible Action Officer. (1) 

Responsible Action Officer means the 

Agency officer principally responsible 

for the approval of action memoranda 

and other documents relating to a given 

Agency action which by these 

regulations apply. Ordinarily, the 

Responsible Action Officer will be the 

Assistant Administrator or equivalent, 

country mission director, or 

Independent Office director whose 

office has responsibility for a given 

action. 

(2) Preliminary environmental 

evaluations. Early in the process of 

considering any possible action the 

Responsible Action Officer shall review 

the action to determine if it may cause 

potential significant environmental 

effects on the environment of the United 

States. This review shall be shared with 

the relevant Bureau Environmental 

Officer for review and advice before 

proceeding to ensure timely and cost 

effective implementation of this 

Regulation. A proposed action shall be 

reviewed initially to determine into 

which of the following three basic 

categories of action it falls: 

(i) Actions normally requiring 

environmental impact statements; 

(ii) Actions categorically excluded 

from environmental impact statements; 

or 

(iii) Actions normally requiring 

environmental assessments (as defined 

by 40 CFR 1508.9). If the Responsible 

Action Officer concludes that the 

proposed action is a major action 

potentially having significant effects in 

the United States they shall, in 

cooperation with their BEO and any 

other appropriate USAID officials, carry 

out the steps described in these 

regulations. 

(c) Bureau Environmental Officer 

(BEO). The BEO shall have the primary 

responsibility for approving the 

recommendations from the RAO and 

advising on environmental compliance 

procedures for actions funded by their 

Bureau or Independent Office. The BEO 

shall: 

(1) Review and approve in writing all 

recommended decisions and documents 

from the Responsible Action Officers. 

(2) Provide advice and training to 

Bureaus, Independent Offices, and 

country missions and their staff to 

ensure optimal compliance with this 

Regulation. 

(3) Advise the Agency Environmental 

Coordinator on Environmental Impact 

Statements and overall trends or critical 

issues in implementing this Regulation. 

(d) USAID General Counsel (GC). The 

GC or their appointed attorney shall: 

(1) Advise the BEO and AEC on 

matters of law as they may pertain to 

this Regulation. 

(2) Represent USAID in any responses 

to legal challenges that may arise in 

matters related to this Regulation, in 

conjunction with the Department of 

Justice and any other appropriate 

Federal agencies. 

(e) Agency Environmental 

Coordinator (AEC). The AEC shall: 

(1) Oversee and ensure the Agency’s 

compliance with this Regulation as part 

of his or her oversight of Agency 

environmental policies, Federal 

Regulations and procedures for 

domestic and international activities. 

(2) Arbitrate unresolved differences 

among Responsible Action Officers, 

BEOs, and other USAID officials to 

ensure effective implementation of this 

Regulation. 

(3) Concur in the appointment of 

BEOs by their Assistant Administrator 

or Independent Office Director and who 

will implement this Regulation to 

ensure the BEO’s professional technical 

qualifications. 

(4) Participate with the relevant BEO 

on any Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) process undertaken through this 

Regulation and forward any EIS 

documents to the USAID Administrator 

for his or her decision per § 237.6(c)(1). 

(5) Lead USAID representation to the 

White House Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) and other Executive 

Branch agencies on matters relating to 

implementing this Regulation. 

§ 237.5 Applicability of procedures. 

(a) The procedures herein apply to all 

USAID funded domestic activities. All 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 202 / Monday, October 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62581 

USAID program funded activities are 

reviewed under the environmental 

compliance procedures at 22 CFR part 

216. 

(b) Emergency procedures. Requests 

for deviations from the procedures in 

this Regulation because of emergency 

circumstances (40 CFR 1506.11) shall be 

evaluated after consultation with CEQ. 

Such consultations are rapid, do not 

materially affect the need to 

immediately address emergencies, and 

often result in more effective responses 

and results including increased lives 

and property saved. 

(c) Emergency actions. (1) Emergency 

circumstances may require immediate 

actions that preclude following standard 

NEPA processes. Immediate emergency 

actions necessary to protect the lives 

and safety of the public should never be 

delayed in order to comply with NEPA. 

In the event of emergency 

circumstances, the responsible bureau 

or office should coordinate with the 

relevant Bureau Environmental Officer 

(BEO) and the Agency Environmental 

Coordinator (AEC) as soon as 

practicable. When time permits, rapid 

environmental review and 

documentation should be prepared to 

the greatest extent practicable in 

accordance with these procedures. 

These actions should be taken as soon 

as is necessary to ensure the protection 

and safety of the public. However, the 

Agency shall consider and mitigate the 

impacts that the response action could 

have on the human and natural 

environment when developing the 

response strategy. After immediate first 

response saving of life and property, if 

following the normal procedures below 

is not possible to continue preserving 

lives and property USAID will follow 

the CEQ guidance on Alternative 

Arrangements. Alternative arrangements 

do not waive the requirement to comply 

with NEPA, but establish an alternative 

means for NEPA compliance. 

(2) Where emergency circumstances 

make it necessary to take an action with 

significant environmental impact 

without observing the provisions of this 

regulation and the related CEQ 

regulation (40 CFR part 1500), USAID 

will consult with the CEQ about 

Alternative Arrangements. This 

consultation will be facilitated by the 

Agency Environmental Coordinator 

with support from the relevant Bureau 

and the General Counsel’s Office. 

USAID and CEQ will limit such 

Alternative Arrangements to actions 

necessary to control the immediate 

impacts of the emergency. Other mid 

and long term actions remain subject to 

the below NEPA review. 

(3) Categorical exclusions. Where 

emergency circumstances make it 

necessary to take an action before a 

determination is made regarding 

whether an extraordinary circumstance 

would preclude the use of a Categorical 

Exclusion, the Responsible Action 

Officer must make the determination in 

concert with the relevant Bureau 

Environmental Officer. 

(4) Environmental Assessments. 

Where emergency circumstances make 

it necessary to take an action that 

requires an EA before the EA can be 

completed, the Responsible Action 

Officer must agree with the Bureau 

Environmental Officer to develop 

Alternative Arrangements to meet the 

requirements of these procedures and 

CEQ Regulations pertaining to 

Environmental Assessments. Alternative 

arrangements should focus on 

minimizing adverse environmental 

consequences of the proposed action 

and the emergency. To the maximum 

extent practical, these Alternative 

Arrangements should include the public 

notification and involvement that would 

normally be undertaken for an 

Environmental Assessment for the 

action at issue. The Bureau 

Environmental Officer may grant an 

Alternative Arrangement. Any 

Alternative Arrangement must be 

documented and notification provided 

to the Council on Environmental 

Quality with the facilitation by the 

Agency Environmental Coordinator at 

the earliest opportunity. 

(5) Environmental Impact Statements. 

(i) CEQ may grant Alternative 

Arrangements for, but not eliminate, 

NEPA compliance where emergency 

circumstances make it necessary to take 

actions with potential significant 

environmental impacts without 

observing other provisions of the CEQ 

Regulations (40 CFR 1506.11, CEQ 

Regulations). In these situations, the 

processing times may be reduced or, if 

the emergency situation warrants, 

preparation and processing of EISs may 

be abbreviated. A request for Alternative 

Arrangements must be submitted to 

CEQ. The Responsible Action Officer 

shall consult with the Agency 

Environmental Coordinator as early as 

possible so that the Agency 

Environmental Coordinator can notify 

CEQ as early as possible. 

(ii) For projects undertaken by an 

applicant, the Responsible Action 

Officer in conjunction with their Bureau 

Environmental Officer will inform the 

Agency Environmental Coordinator. The 

Agency Environmental Coordinator will 

consult CEQ about Alternative 

Arrangements for complying with NEPA 

and work with the Responsible Action 

Officer and Bureau Environmental 

Officer to develop and implement a time 

sensitive and workable solution. 

(d) Categorical exclusions. The 

following categories of actions have 

been found to not normally have a 

significant effect on the natural or 

physical environment and for which an 

Environmental Assessment or an 

Environmental Impact Statement is, 

absent extraordinary circumstances, not 

required: 

(1) Internal personnel, fiscal, 

management, and administrative 

activities, such as recruiting, processing, 

paying, recordkeeping, lease payments, 

rent and utility payments, medical care, 

resource management, budgeting, 

personnel actions, official travel, and 

reductions, increases, realignments, or 

relocation of personnel. 

(2) Actions at USAID owned, 

operated, or leased facilities involving 

routine facility operations and 

maintenance, repair, and grounds 

keeping, and acquisition actions and 

contracting actions for management and 

operation of government facilities. 

Examples include acquisition and 

payment of office supplies and utilities, 

equipment, claims and indemnities, 

printing and reproduction, 

transportation of goods, and information 

technology software and systems. To 

qualify for a Categorical Exclusion 

under this subsection, such actions 

must be implemented under any 

Greening the Government or comparable 

White House directives. 

(3) Minor rehabilitation, restoration, 

renovation, or revitalization of USAID 

owned, operated, or leased facilities to 

include: Replacement, acquisition, and 

installation of information technology 

and similar office equipment; and minor 

or small-scale construction of ancillary 

facilities on previously disturbed areas 

adjacent to or on the same property as 

existing facilities and compatible with 

current land use. To qualify for a 

Categorical Exclusion under this 

subsection, such actions must be 

implemented under any Greening the 

Government or comparable White 

House directives to the extent 

practicable. 

(4) Document and information 

exchanges. 

(5) Education, technical assistance, or 

training programs except to the extent 

such programs include activities 

directly or indirectly affecting the 

environment (such as construction 

facilities, etc.) 

(6) Controlled experimentation 

exclusively for the purpose of research 

and field evaluation which are confined 

to small areas, are carefully monitored, 

and that follow any applicable Federal 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
62582 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 202 / Monday, October 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

and State environmental and safety 

regulations. Small areas typically 

include controlled access facilities 

including laboratories, small plots of 

land, or evaluations of existing 

programs in limited geographic areas. 

(7) Analysis, studies, academic, or 

research workshops and meetings. 

(8) Institutional buildings grants to 

research and educational institutions in 

the United States such as those 

provided for under section 122(d) and 

Title XII of Chapter 2 of Part I of the 

Foreign Assistance Act (22 USCA 

sections 2151 p. (b) 2220a. (1979)); 

Construction of new facilities is not 

included. 

(9) To use a Categorical Exclusion, the 

following three screening conditions 

must be met: 

(i) The action has not been segmented. 

The BEO must determine that the action 

has not been segmented to meet the 

definition of a CE. Segmentation can 

occur when an action is broken down 

into small parts. The activity approved 

under a CE must be a single and 

complete project that operates with 

independent utility. The scope of an 

action must include the consideration of 

Connected Actions as defined by 40 

CFR 1508.25 and the effects when 

applying extraordinary circumstances 

must consider Cumulative Impacts as 

defined by 40 CFR 1508.7. 

(ii) No Extraordinary circumstances 

exist for the activity being considered 

under these NEPA procedures. If a 

determination is made that the action 

involves one or more Extraordinary 

Circumstances it would preclude the 

use of a CE (see paragraph (d) of this 

section). 

(iii) One CE encompasses the 

proposed action. 

Identify a CE that encompasses the 

proposed action. If multiple CEs could 

be applicable, proceed only when it is 

clear that the entire proposed action is 

covered by one CE. Any limitation 

raised in other potentially applicable 

CEs should be considered when 

determining whether it is appropriate to 

proceed without further analysis in an 

EA or EIS. If there is no appropriate 

single CE, then an EA or an EIS must be 

prepared before proceeding with the 

proposed action. 

(e) Extraordinary circumstances. If the 

action involves any of the following 

Extraordinary Circumstances, a 

Categorical Exclusion is precluded and 

the proposed action shall require 

additional environmental analysis 

through an Environmental Assessment 

or Environmental Impact Statement: 

(1) The potential for significant 

adverse direct or indirect impact on the 

environment, public health, or safety. 

(2) The proposed action is known or 

expected to impose uncertain or unique 

environmental risks. 

(3) The proposed action is of greater 

scope or size than is normal for this 

category of action. 

(4) The proposed action is known or 

expected to have adverse or significant 

adverse effect on federally listed 

threatened or endangered species, or 

their critical habitat. 

(5) The proposed action is known or 

expected to significantly affect national 

or international natural landmarks or 

any property with nationally significant 

historic, architectural, prehistoric, 

archeological, or cultural value. 

(6) The proposed action is known or 

expected to adversely affect domestic or 

international environmentally important 

natural resource areas such as parks, 

forests, wetlands, floodplains, 

significant agricultural lands, aquifer 

recharge zones, coastal zones, coral 

reefs, barrier islands, wild and scenic 

rivers, and significant fish or wildlife 

habitat. 

(7) The proposed action is known or 

expected to cause significant adverse air 

quality effects. 

(8) The proposed action is known or 

expected to have a significant effect on 

the pattern and type of land use 

(industrial, commercial, agricultural, 

recreational, residential) or growth and 

distribution of population including 

altering the character of existing 

residential areas. 

(9) The proposed action may not be 

consistent with state or local 

government, or federally-recognized 

Indian tribe approved land use plans or 

federal land management plans. 

(10) The proposed action will either 

procure or use pesticides in any 

quantity and whether funded by USAID 

or some other entity. USAID uses the 

term pesticide as defined by the US 

Environmental Protection Agency and 

includes chemical and biological 

substances. 

§ 237.6 Procedures. 

For USAID activities not categorically 

excluded, an Environmental Assessment 

or Environmental Impact Statement 

must be prepared. In deciding whether 

to prepare an Environmental 

Assessment or Environmental Impact 

Statement, the Responsible Action 

Officer shall make an initial review in 

the early planning stages of a proposed 

action to identify and evaluate potential 

environmental effects of the actions and 

all reasonable measures which may be 

taken to mitigate adverse impacts and 

submit it to the relevant Bureau 

Environmental Officer for their review 

and written approval before proceeding. 

The BEO may require changes if in their 

judgment such are needed to ensure 

environmental soundness. 

(a) Scoping. Scoping shall commence 

as soon as the Agency is actively 

preparing to make a decision on one or 

more alternative means to accomplish a 

proposed activity. 

(1) Scoping identifies the significant 

potential environmental issues related 

to the proposed action and determines 

the focused scope of the issues to be 

addressed in the EA or EIS increasing its 

effectiveness and focusing resources on 

the key issues. Persons potentially 

affected by the environmental aspects of 

the proposed action shall be invited to 

participate in this Scoping process. 

Scoping is applicable to both the EIS 

process and EA processes and results in 

a written Scoping statement that 

includes the following: 

(i) A determination of the scope and 

significance of issues to be analyzed in 

the EA or EIS, including direct, indirect, 

and Cumulative Effects of the project 

and its Connected Actions on the 

environment. 

(ii) A brief discussion of issues 

identified but subsequently eliminated 

during the scoping process because they 

were thought not to have a significant 

impact on the environment, based on 

expert opinion, or were addressed in 

another recent environmental review 

process. 

(iii) A time line for preparation of the 

environmental analysis that includes a 

tentative planning and decision making 

schedule. 

(iv) A description of how the analysis 

will be conducted and the disciplines 

that will participate in the analysis. 

(v) A description of how the public 

will be consulted which at a minimum 

will include at the draft stage of the EA 

or EIS. 

(vi) Any public Environmental 

Assessments and other Environmental 

Impact Statements which are being or 

will be prepared by USAID or any other 

Federal agency that are related to but are 

not part of the scope of the impact 

statement under consideration. 

(vii) A list of any Cooperating 

Agencies identified by USAID or who 

ask to be given this official status and 

other environmental review and 

consultation requirements so the lead 

and Cooperating Agencies may prepare 

any other required analyses and studies 

concurrently with, and integrated with, 

the environmental impact statement. 

(2) The Scoping activities result in a 

Scoping Statement that shall be in 

writing and be reviewed and approved 

by the responsible Bureau 

Environmental Officer (BEO). Once 

approved by the BEO, the Scoping 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 202 / Monday, October 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62583 

Statement may be circulated as 

provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section. 

(3) Circulation of scoping statement. 

In addition to its internal processing 

and review, USAID may circulate copies 

of the written scoping statement for an 

EA. For EIS level activities, the Agency 

shall circulate copies of the written 

scoping statement, together with a 

request for written comments to selected 

Federal agencies if the Agency believes 

comments by other Federal agencies 

will be useful in the preparation of an 

EA or Environmental Impact Statement. 

Comments received from reviewing 

federal agencies will be considered in 

the preparation of the Environmental 

Impact Statement and be included in 

the project file. 

(4) All final Scoping documents and 

EAs will be made available to the public 

on USAID’s public Web site. To the 

extent that there is classified or 

administratively controlled information 

(such as contract or agreement sensitive 

material) it shall be redacted before the 

remaining parts of these documents are 

made available in this way. 

(b) Preparation of an Environmental 

Assessment. (1) Should an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) be 

required, the Bureau or Independent 

Office supporting the activity shall be 

responsible for its preparation. 

(2) A copy of the EA shall accompany 

the proposal throughout the Agency 

internal activity review and approval 

process. 

(3) If, on the basis of an EA, it is 

determined that an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) is not required, 

a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) as described in 40 CFR 1508.13 

will be prepared. 

(4) The responsible Bureau 

Environmental Officer (BEO) will either 

approve in writing the FONSI or request 

reconsideration by the officer 

responsible for preparation of the EA 

and FONSI, stating the reasons for the 

request. 

(5) Content and form. The EA shall be 

based upon the Scoping Statement and 

shall address the following elements: 

(i)Summary. The summary shall stress 

the major conclusions, areas of 

controversy, if any, and the issues to be 

resolved. To the extent specific 

mitigating measures and Environmental 

Monitoring and Management Plan 

(EMMP) are required, they shall be 

listed in summary form here. Should 

mitigating measures and EMMP be 

required, they shall be provided, along 

with the entire EA, to the contracting or 

agreement officer and be required to be 

included in any acquisition or 

agreement documents that may be 

needed to implement the activity. This 

will ensure the contractor or grantee is 

fully informed of their environmental 

responsibilities and that funding is 

included to implement them. 

(ii) Purpose and need. This section 

shall briefly specify the underlying 

purpose and need of the proposed 

activity and discuss the range of 

alternatives considered but not analyzed 

to meet the project objectives. 

(iii) Alternatives including the 

proposed action. This section should 

present the environmental impacts of 

the proposal and its alternatives in 

comparative form that provides a clear 

basis for selection among project 

alternatives. The Alternatives Analysis 

section should explore and evaluate 

reasonable alternatives for detailed 

comparative consideration and 

evaluation. There shall be at least one 

practical Alternative to the 

recommended action plus a No Action 

Alternative. This section will also 

briefly discuss the reasons for 

eliminating those Alternatives which 

were not included in the detailed study. 

The document must also include a 

discussion of the No Action Alternative. 

Based on the comparative analysis of 

each Alternative, the Agency will 

identify the preferred Alternative if one 

exists. 

(iv) Affected environment. The EA 

shall succinctly describe the existing 

environmental baseline conditions of 

the area(s) to be affected by each of the 

alternatives for the proposed action. The 

descriptions shall be no longer than is 

necessary to understand the effects of 

the alternatives, but shall be sufficient 

to determine during implementation of 

the action the degree to which it is 

improving, harming or having no effect 

on the environment. Data and analyses 

in the EA shall be commensurate with 

the significance of the impact with less 

important material summarized, 

consolidated or simply referenced. This 

section may be brief to enable a greater 

focus on the analysis of environmental 

consequences in paragraph (b)(5)(v) of 

this section. 

(v) Environmental consequences. This 

information forms the analytic basis for 

the alternatives analysis under 

paragraph (b)(6)(iii) of this section. It 

will include the environmental impacts 

of the Alternatives; any adverse effects 

that cannot be avoided should the 

proposed action be implemented; and 

any irreversible or irretrievable 

commitments of resources which would 

be involved in the proposal should it be 

implemented. It should not duplicate 

discussions in paragraph (b)(6)(iii) of 

this section. This section of the 

Environmental Assessment should 

include discussions of direct 

environmental effects and their 

significance; indirect effects and their 

significance; Cumulative Impacts and 

Connected Actions, Environmental 

Justice, possible conflicts between the 

proposed action and land use plans, 

policies and controls for the areas 

concerned; energy requirements and 

conservation potential of various 

alternatives and mitigation measures; 

natural or depletable resource 

requirements and conservation potential 

of various requirements and mitigation 

measures; urban quality; historic and 

cultural resources and the design of the 

built environment, including the reuse 

and conservation potential of various 

alternatives. 

(vi) The EA will include appropriate 

mitigation measures to compensate for 

adverse environmental impacts of the 

preferred alternative, or the final 

alternative selected for funding and 

shall use the mitigation hierarchy as 

defined in 40 CFR 1508.20. This shall be 

in the form of an actionable 

Environmental Mitigation and 

Monitoring Plan to enable the Activity 

Manager, Contract Officer 

Representative (COR), or comparable 

officer to adaptively manage the activity 

for environmental soundness 

throughout implementation. 

(vii) List of preparers. The 

Environmental Assessment shall list the 

names and qualifications (expertise, 

experience, professional discipline) of 

the persons primarily responsible for 

preparing the Environmental 

Assessment or significant background 

papers. 

(viii) Appendix. An appendix or 

appendices may be prepared. 

(ix) Classified material. An EA will 

not normally include classified or 

administratively controlled material. 

However, there may be situations where 

environmental aspects cannot be 

adequately discussed without the 

inclusion of such material. The 

handling and disclosure of classified or 

administratively controlled material 

shall be governed by 22 CFR part 9. 

Those portions of an EA which are not 

classified or administratively controlled 

will be made available to persons 

outside the Agency as provided for in 22 

CFR part 212. 

(x) Public distribution and review. If 

the EA results in a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI), the EA and 

proposed FONSI shall be made available 

for a 30 day public review and comment 

period before the FONSI is signed and 

a decision to take any action is made. 

If the EA results in a determination that 

an EIS is required, public participation 

shall be undertaken in accordance with 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
62584 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 202 / Monday, October 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

the procedures described in paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section. 

(c) Environmental Impact Statement. 

(1) Procedure and Content. If the 

Agency determines an Environmental 

Impact Statement is required at the 

initial stages of the project development, 

or as a result of a completed 

Environmental Assessment, the 

environmental impact statement and 

associated documentation will be 

prepared by the originating office in 

accordance with section 102(2)(c) of 

NEPA, this section, and the CEQ 

regulations. The responsible bureau or 

office will submit the document through 

the Agency Environmental Coordinator 

to the Administrator who, after such 

review as deemed necessary, will 

circulate the document in accordance 

with section 1502.19 of the CEQ 

regulations. Specifically, the following 

steps, as discussed in the CEQ 

regulations, will be followed in 

preparing an EIS: 

(i) A notice of intent to prepare a draft 

EIS will be published as described in 40 

CFR 1501.7. 

(ii) Scoping, as described in 40 CFR 

1501.7, will be conducted. 

(iii) The format and contents of the 

draft and final EIS shall be as discussed 

in 40 CFR part 1502. 

(iv) Comments on the Draft EIS (DEIS) 

shall be invited as set forth in 40 CFR 

1503.1. The minimum period to be 

afforded for comments on a DEIS shall 

be 45 days. The Agency will identify 

any conflicting statutory mandates that 

would preclude the 45 day comment 

period. Emergency circumstances are 

described in § 237.3 when compliance 

with standard NEPA procedures is not 

feasible. 

(v) The requirements of 40 CFR 

1506.9 for filing of documents with the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Office of Federal Activities shall be 

followed. 

(vi) The responsible Bureau or 

Independent Office shall examine 

carefully the basis on which supportive 

studies have been conducted to assure 

that such studies are objective and 

comprehensive in scope and in depth. 

(2) Applicability. An EIS shall be 

prepared when agency actions 

potentially significantly affect: 

(i) The global commons; 

(ii) The environment of the United 

States (or its territories); or 

(iii) Other aspects of the environment 

at the discretion of the USAID 

Administrator. 

(3) Effects on the United States.— 

Content and form. An EIS relating to 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall 

comply with the CEQ Regulations (40 

CFR part 1500) and these procedures. 

(4) Processing and review within 

USAID. (i) All USAID funded domestic 

activities and any amendments thereto 

are subject to these procedures prior to 

implementation of the approved activity 

unless otherwise exempted. 

(ii) The Bureau Environmental 

Officer’s functions may not be 

delegated—other than to an appointed 

Deputy Bureau Environmental Officer, if 

there is one, and who will act in this 

decision making capacity only in the 

absence of the BEO. 

(A) In cases when a Draft and Final 

EIS is prepared, each will be reviewed 

and cleared by the Agency 

Environmental Coordinator and the 

Office of the General Counsel. 

(B) The Agency Administrator or 

Acting Administrator shall give final 

approval of an EIS. This may not be 

delegated other than to the Deputy 

Administrator who may only act in the 

capacity in the absence of the 

Administrator. 

(C) A public Record of Decision (ROD) 

stating what the decision was; 

identifying alternatives that were 

considered, including the 

environmentally preferable one(s); 

discussing any national policy 

considerations that entered into the 

decision; and summarizing an 

Environmental Monitoring and 

Management Plan (EMMP) to enforce 

applicable for any mitigation that may 

be required, will be prepared. This 

record of decision (ROD) will be 

prepared at the time the decision is 

made, or if appropriate, when the 

agency makes its recommendation for 

action to Congress. (See 40 CFR 1505.2). 

It will also be included along with the 

full Final EIS in the appropriate 

acquisition or agreement documents to 

ensure it is funded and fully 

implemented. 

(5) Environmental Mitigation and 

Monitoring Plans (EMMPs). Projects and 

programs for which Environmental 

Assessments, or Environmental Impact 

Statements have been prepared, and 

where adverse environmental impacts 

are anticipated, must include 

monitoring of the change in 

environmental conditions during project 

implementation, and monitoring of 

environmental mitigation measures. 

These are laid out in an Environmental 

Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) 

that will be incorporated into 

appropriate acquisition or assistance 

agreements to ensure they are 

transparent, widely understood, and 

funded. This will require recording of 

baseline data prior to starting the 

proposed activity, and monitoring 

environmental conditions as the activity 

progresses. Originating offices of USAID 

will formulate activity specific 

monitoring procedures during the 

activity life cycle. Throughout the 

environmental analysis process, the 

Agency will consider mitigation 

measures to avoid or minimize 

environmental harm. The USAID 

Implementing Officer responsible for 

this will be the Activity Manager or the 

Contracting Officer’s or Agreements 

Officer’s Representative or similar 

officer who manages the activity. 

Mitigation measures include: 

(i) Avoiding the impact altogether, by 

eliminating the action or parts of the 

action, or by redesigning or redirecting 

the activity to eliminate such actions or 

parts of the action. 

(ii) Minimizing impacts by limiting 

the degree or magnitude of the action, 

its implementation, and its subsequent 

impacts on the environment. 

(iii) Rectifying the impact; by 

repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the 

adverse effect of the proposed action on 

the environment. 

(iv) Reducing or eliminating the 

impact over time, by preservation and 

maintenance operations during the life 

of the action. 

(v) Compensating for the impact, by 

replacing or providing substitute 

resources or ecological functions. 

(6) Mitigation and monitoring for EA 

and EIS level analysis. (i) When the 

environmental analysis described in this 

Regulation proceeds to an EA or EIS, 

mitigation measures, if any, will be 

clearly assessed and those selected for 

implementation will be identified in the 

FONSI or the ROD. Only those practical 

mitigation measures that can reasonably 

be accomplished as part of a proposed 

alternative will be identified. The 

Agency is required to implement those 

identified mitigations, because they are 

commitments made as part of the 

Agency decision to proceed with the 

activity. 

(ii) Mitigation identified in a FONSI 

or ROD including any EMMP shall 

become part of the budget or funding 

document, or other legal document that 

implements the activity (i.e. leases, 

contracts, or grants) so that it may be 

transparently monitored and enforced. 

(iii) Progress of the identified 

mitigations will be monitored and 

documented through an Environmental 

Management and Monitoring Plan 

(EMMP) report prepared by the Agency 

or entity undertaking the activity on its 

behalf. The Contracts Officer’s 

Representative (COR), Agreements 

Officer’s Representative (AOR) or 

comparable USAID manager of the 

activity shall have the primary 

responsibility for this function. 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 202 / Monday, October 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62585 

(iv) If an analysis of the selected 

mitigation measures demonstrates that 

the environmental impacts of the 

activity are no longer significant, an EA 

may result in a FONSI. If the Agency 

commits to performing the identified 

mitigation measures in order to reduce 

the level of significance of the impact, 

the FONSI must identify these 

mitigating measures, and they become 

legally binding and must be 

accomplished as the project is 

implemented. This is called a Mitigated 

FONSI. If any of the mitigation 

measures identified in the FONSI are 

not performed, and significant adverse 

environmental impacts could 

reasonably result, the Agency must 

prepare an EIS. 

(v) Potential mitigation measures that 

appear practical will be identified in the 

NEPA analysis. Practical measures are 

those that can be reasonably undertaken 

considering factors including: Excessive 

cost, logistics, technical feasibility, 

Agency resources, and environmental 

benefit. This exclusion may not be used 

as an excuse to avoid mitigation when 

a Bureau or Independent Office has 

failed to budget reasonable time and 

resources to address environmental 

issues. This will also not be accepted in 

cases when serious environmental harm 

will result. The expectation is that 

reasonable practical mitigative measures 

to reduce or eliminate potential adverse 

environmental impacts can be identified 

and funded, or that actions can be 

redesigned to avoid or minimize 

otherwise impractical mitigation. 

Budgets must include funding for 

mitigation measures for them to be 

considered practical. The project or 

activity cannot be undertaken until all 

required mitigation efforts are fully 

resourced, or until the lack of funding 

and resultant effects, are fully addressed 

in the NEPA analysis. 

(vi) The practical mitigation measures 

that were considered but rejected must 

be discussed, along with the reason for 

the rejection, within the EA or EIS. If 

they occur in an EA, their rejection may 

lead to an EIS, if the resultant 

unmitigated environmental impacts are 

determined significant. 

(vii) The Agency or other appropriate 

cooperating agency will implement 

mitigations, an EMMP and other 

conditions established in the EA or EIS, 

or commitments made in the FONSI or 

ROD. Legal documents implementing 

the action (such as contracts, permits, 

and grants) will specify mitigation 

measures to be performed. Penalties 

against a contractor for noncompliance 

may also be specified as appropriate. 

Specification of penalties should be 

fully coordinated with the appropriate 

USAID legal advisor. 

(viii) A monitoring and enforcement 

program for any mitigation will be 

adopted and summarized in the NEPA 

documentation. Whether adoption of a 

monitoring and enforcement program is 

applicable (40 CFR 1505.2(c)) and 

whether the specific adopted action 

requires monitoring (40 CFR 1505.3) 

may depend on the following: 

(A) A change in environmental 

conditions or project activities assumed 

in the EIS (such that original predictions 

of the extent of adverse environmental 

impacts may be too limited); 

(B) The outcome of the mitigation 

measure is uncertain (for example, new 

technology); 

(C) Major environmental controversy 

remains associated with the selected 

alternative; or 

(D) Failure of a mitigation measure, or 

other unforeseen circumstances, could 

result in a failure to meet achievement 

of requirements (such as adverse effects 

on federal or state listed endangered or 

threatened species, important historic or 

archaeological sites that are either listed 

or eligible for nomination to the 

National Register of Historic Places, 

wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, 

or other public or private protected 

resources). 

(E) Monitoring is an integral part of 

any mitigation system and involves 

enforcing the performance of the 

mitigation measures and determining 

the effectiveness of the mitigation 

measures. 

(F) Enforcement monitoring ensures 

that mitigation is being performed as 

described in the NEPA documentation, 

mitigation requirements and penalty 

clauses are written into any contracts, 

leases or similar implementing 

agreements, and required provisions are 

enforced. The development of an 

enforcement monitoring program is 

governed by who will actually perform 

the mitigation: A contractor, a 

cooperating agency, a grantee, or similar 

entity or by the Agency itself. The 

Agency is ultimately responsible for 

performing any mitigation activities 

required under its environmental 

compliance documents. All monitoring 

results will be sent to the responsible 

Bureau Environmental Officer. The 

Agency Environmental Coordinator may 

review such results to ensure consistent 

Agency-wide compliance. 

(G) Effectiveness monitoring measures 

the success of the mitigation effort and/ 

or the environmental benefit. In 

establishing the monitoring system in 

the EMMP, the Implementing Officer 

should coordinate the monitoring with 

their appropriate Bureau Environmental 

Officer. 

(ix) The monitoring program should 

be established before the action begins. 

At this stage, any necessary contracts, 

grants, funding, and manpower 

assignments must be initiated. 

(x) If the mitigations are effective, the 

monitoring should be continued as long 

as the mitigations are needed to address 

the adverse impacts of the activity. 

(xi) If the mitigations were designed 

to reduce the level of adverse 

environmental impact below the level of 

significance and are shown ineffective, 

the Agency shall re-examine the 

mitigation measures and resolve the 

inadequacies of the mitigation through 

corrective actions or appropriate 

contingency mitigations that 

appropriately reduce the adverse 

environmental impact below the level of 

significance. If the approved mitigation 

measures and any subsequent corrective 

actions are shown to be ineffective, the 

Agency may be required to prepare an 

EIS. 

(xii) This information will also be 

reported in summary in the relevant 

USAID unit’s annual Operational Plan 

(OP) or equivalent in the Environmental 

Compliance Report (ECR) or equivalent 

chapter. 

(7) Additional information—(i) 

Significant impact determined. If an 

activity receives a FONSI through the 

EA process and then the activity is later 

revised or new information becomes 

available which indicates that a 

proposed action is likely to have a 

significant environmental impact then 

an EIS will be prepared as appropriate. 

(ii) No significant impact determined. 

If an activity is determined to have 

potential for a significant environmental 

impact and the activity is later revised 

or new information becomes available 

that reduces the environmental impact 

below the level of significance, an 

amended EA may be performed. 

(iii) Adaptive management. 

Completed Categorical Exclusions, 

Environmental Assessments and 

Environmental Impact Statements will 

be amended and processed 

appropriately if there are substantive 

changes in the project or program; new 

activities, additional funds, or time 

extensions added; or, if significant new 

information becomes available which 

relates to the potential impact of the 

project, program, activity, or 

amendment on the environment that 

was not considered at the time the EA 

or EIS was approved. When ongoing 

programs are revised to incorporate a 

change in scope or nature, a 

determination will be made as to 

whether such change may have an 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
62586 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 202 / Monday, October 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

environmental impact not previously 

assessed. If so, the procedures outlined 

in this part will be followed. 

(iv) Classified material. An EA or EIS 

will not normally include classified or 

administratively controlled material. 

However, there may be situations where 

environmental aspects cannot be 

adequately discussed without the 

inclusion of such material. The 

handling and disclosure of classified or 

administratively controlled material 

shall be governed by 22 CFR part 9. 

Those portions of an EA or EIS which 

are not classified or administratively 

controlled will be made available to 

persons outside the Agency as provided 

for in 22 CFR part 212. 

§ 237.7 Pesticide procedures. 

(a) Actions or projects. Except as 

provided in paragraph (h) of this 

section, all proposed actions or projects 

involving procurement or use, or both, 

of pesticides—whether by USAID or a 

grantee, contractor or other partner— 

shall be subject to the procedures 

prescribed in paragraph (b) of this 

section. These procedures shall also 

apply, to the extent permitted by 

agreements entered into by USAID 

before the effective date of these 

pesticide procedures, to such projects 

that have been authorized but for which 

pesticides have not been procured as of 

the effective date of these pesticide 

procedures. 

(b) When a project includes 

procurement or use, or both, of 

pesticides registered for the same or 

similar uses by USEPA without 

restriction, the Environmental 

Assessment or Environmental Impact 

Statement for the project shall include 

a separate section evaluating the 

economic, social and environmental 

risks and benefits of the planned 

pesticide use to determine whether the 

use may result in significant 

environmental impact. Factors to be 

considered in such an evaluation shall 

include, but not be limited to the 

following: 

(1) The USEPA registration status of 

the requested pesticide; 

(2) The basis for selection of the 

requested pesticide; 

(3) The extent to which the proposed 

pesticide use is part of an integrated 

pest management program; 

(4) The proposed method or methods 

of application, including availability of 

appropriate application and safety 

equipment; 

(5) Any acute and long-term 

toxicological hazards, either human or 

environmental, associated with the 

proposed use and measures available to 

minimize such hazards; 

(6) The effectiveness of the requested 

pesticide for the proposed use; 

(7) Compatibility of the proposed 

pesticide with target and non-target 

ecosystems; 

(8) The conditions under which the 

pesticide is to be used, including 

climate, flora, fauna, geography, 

hydrology, and soils; 

(9) The availability and effectiveness 

of other pesticides or nonchemical 

control methods; 

(10) The provisions made for training 

of users and applicators; and 

(11) The provisions made for 

monitoring the use and effectiveness of 

the pesticide. 

(c) In those cases where the 

evaluation of the proposed pesticide use 

in the EA indicates that the use will 

significantly affect the human 

environment, the EA will include a 

recommendation for the preparation of 

an Environmental Impact Statement. An 

EIS may be prepared without an EA if 

the use of pesticides or other aspect of 

the project under consideration has the 

potential for a significant environmental 

impact. 

(d) When the pesticide evaluation 

section of the EA or EIS does not 

indicate a potentially unreasonable risk 

arising from the pesticide use, 

mitigation measures shall be included 

as appropriate. 

(e) When a project includes 

procurement or use, or both, of any 

pesticide by the USEPA on the basis of 

user hazard, the procedures set forth in 

paragraph (b) of this section will be 

followed. In addition, the EA or EIS will 

include an evaluation of the user 

hazards associated with the proposed 

USEPA restricted uses. 

(f) Only pesticides that are currently 

registered for the same or similar uses 

by the USEPA may be procured or used 

for Agency funded projects that occur in 

the United States or US territories. If a 

USEPA registered pesticide is approved 

for procurement or use in a USAID 

funded action and at some point during 

the action USEPA subsequently cancels 

the registration, USAID will order the 

contractor or grantee to stop the 

procurement or use of that pesticide and 

will immediately undertake an 

amendment to the EA or EIS to decide 

on an appropriate USEPA registered 

replacement pesticide. 

(g) If the project includes the 

procurement or use, or both of 

pesticides but the specific pesticides to 

be procured or used cannot be identified 

at the time the EA or EIS is prepared, 

the procedures outlined in paragraphs 

(a) through (c) of this section will be 

followed when the specific pesticides 

are identified and before procurement or 

use is authorized. 

(h) Exceptions to pesticide 

procedures. The procedures set forth in 

paragraph (b) of this section shall not 

apply to the following actions or 

projects under emergency conditions. 

Emergency conditions shall be deemed 

to exist when it is determined by the 

Administrator, USAID, in writing that: 

(1) An unforeseeable and significant 

pest outbreak has occurred or is 

imminent; and 

(2) Significant health problems (either 

human or animal) or significant 

economic problems will occur without 

the prompt use of the proposed 

pesticide; and 

(3) Insufficient time is available before 

the pesticide must be used to evaluate 

the proposed use in accordance with the 

provisions of this regulation. 

(4) Actions or Projects including 

assistance for procurement or use, or 

both, of pesticides for controlled 

laboratory research or limited controlled 

access, small area field evaluation 

purposes by or under the supervision of 

action or project research personnel. In 

such instances, however, USAID will 

ensure that the manufacturers of the 

pesticides provide toxicological and 

environmental data necessary to 

safeguard the health or research 

personnel and the quality of the local 

environment in which the pesticides 

will be used. Furthermore, treated crops 

will not be used for human or animal 

consumption unless appropriate 

tolerances have been established by 

USEPA and the rates and frequency of 

application, together with the 

prescribed pre-harvest intervals, do not 

result in residues exceeding such 

tolerances. This prohibition does not 

apply to the feeding of such crops to 

animals for controlled research 

purposes. Any pesticides used under 

this exception that are not registered by 

USEPA must be registered before they 

can be recommended for use in any 

regular USAID action or project, and 

successfully go through the EA or EIS 

process in this regulation. 

§ 237.8 Genetically modified organisms. 

(a) If projects or activities will 

potentially involve the procurement or 

use of genetically modified organisms in 

research, field trials, or dissemination, 

the Agency biosafety staff, in 

Washington, must review and approve it 

for compliance with applicable U.S. 

requirements before the obligation of 

funds and before the transfer, testing, or 

release of biotechnology products into 

the environment. 

(b) This biosafety review is limited to 

the safety aspects of the proposed 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 202 / Monday, October 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62587 

activities and typically involves external 

scientific peer review or demonstration 

of comparable safety oversight by other 

expert U.S. Federal agencies. The 

biosafety review cannot be waived or 

delegated. 

(c) A biosafety review precludes the 

use of a categorical exclusion for the 

proposed activity. The EA or EIS for the 

activity will include the results of the 

biosafety review. 

§ 237.9 Endangered species. 

An EIS must be prepared if a 

proposed project, program, or activity 

may adversely affect a federally listed 

threatened or endangered species, or 

adversely modify its critical habitat. It is 

USAID policy to conduct its Agency 

operations in a manner that is sensitive 

to the protection of endangered or 

threatened species and their critical 

habitats. The EIS for each project, 

program or activity having an effect on 

the environment shall specifically 

determine whether the project, program 

or activity will have an effect on 

endangered or threatened species, or 

critical habitat. 

§ 237.10 Filing and publishing. 

All Draft, Final and Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statements shall 

be filed electronically with USEPA’s 

Office of Federal Activities as required 

in 40 CFR 1506.9. They must be filed no 

earlier than they are transmitted to 

Cooperating Agencies and made 

available to the public. This assures that 

the EIS is received by all interested 

parties by the time the USEPA Notice of 

Availability appears in the Federal 

Register, and therefore allows for the 

full minimum review periods prescribed 

in 40 CFR 1506.10. Such filings will be 

in collaboration with the relevant 

Bureau Environmental Officer and the 

Agency Environmental Coordinator. 

§ 237.11 Public hearings. 

(a) In most instances USAID will be 

able to gain the benefit of public 

participation in the process through 

circulation of draft scoping documents, 

draft final EAs and EISs and notice of 

public availability as set out at 40 CFR 

1506.6. However, in some cases the 

Administrator may wish to hold 

physical public hearings on a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 

In deciding whether or not such a 

public hearing is appropriate and 

making a recommendation to the 

Administrator, heads of Bureaus or 

Independent Offices in conjunction 

with the Agency Environmental 

Coordinator should consider: 

(1) The magnitude of the proposal in 

terms of economic costs, the geographic 

area involved, and the uniqueness or 

size of commitment of the resources 

involved; 

(2) The degree of interest in the 

proposal as evidenced by requests from 

the public and from Federal, state and 

local authorities, and private 

organizations and individuals, that a 

hearing be held; 

(3) The complexity of the issue and 

likelihood that information will be 

presented at the hearing which will be 

of assistance to the Agency; and 

(4) The extent to which public 

involvement already has been achieved 

through other means, Such as earlier 

public hearings, meetings with citizen 

representatives, and/or written 

comments on the proposed action. 

(b) If public hearings are held, the 

documents to be discussed should be 

made available to the public at least 

fifteen (15) days prior to the time of the 

public hearings, and a notice will be 

placed in the Federal Register giving 

the subject, time and place of the 

proposed hearings. To the extent 

possible, such public hearings shall be 

held in the local community or 

jurisdiction where the action is 

proposed. 

§ 237.12 Records and reports. 

Agency Bureaus and Independent 

Offices will maintain copies of finalized 

NEPA compliance documents and 

approved decision documents as part of 

the official project files, and make them 

freely available to the public by posting 

them on the Agency’s internet pages. To 

the extent any national security 

classified information or procurement 

sensitive information is included, those 

portions will be redacted before making 

such documents available to the public. 

Angelique M. Crumbly, 

Agency Regulatory Official, U.S. Agency for 

International Development. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24828 Filed 10–17–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

25 CFR Parts 81 and 82 

[BIA–2014–0006; K00103 12/13 A3A10; 

134D0102DR–DS5A300000– 

DR.5A311.IA000113] 

RIN 1076–AE93 

Secretarial Election Procedures 

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of tribal consultation 

meetings. 

SUMMARY: This document announces 

tribal consultation meetings on the 

proposed rule amending regulations 

governing Secretarial elections and 

petitioning procedures. 

DATES: See the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document 

for dates of the tribal consultation 

meetings. 

ADDRESSES: See the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document 

for addresses of the tribal consultation 

meetings. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Laurel Iron Cloud, Chief, Division of 

Tribal Government Services, Central 

Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs at 

telephone (202) 513–7641. Individuals 

who use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service at 1 (800) 

877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 9, 2014, we published a 

proposed rule amending 25 CFR parts 

81 (Secretarial Elections) and 82 

(Petitioning Procedures), combining 

them into one Code of Federal 

Regulations part at 25 CFR part 81. See 

79 FR 61021. The proposed rule is 

available at: http://www.bia.gov/

WhoWeAre/AS–IA/ORM/SecElections/

index.htm. 

We will be hosting the following 

tribal consultations sessions on this 

proposed rule: 

Date Time Location Venue 

Sunday, October 26, 2014 .. 1:00 p.m.–4:00 p.m. (Local 

time).

Atlanta, GA ........................ National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) Annual 

Convention, Hyatt Regency Atlanta, 265 Peachtree 

St. NE., Atlanta, GA 30303. 

Tuesday, November 18, 

2014.

8:30 a.m.–12:00 p.m. 

(Local time).

Oklahoma City, OK ........... Embassy Suites Oklahoma City Airport, 1815 S. Meridian Ave., Oklahoma City, OK 73108. 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS