### 62587 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 202 / Monday, October 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules

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.


### 62588 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 202 / Monday, October 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules

Date Time Location Venue

Thursday, November 20,

2014. 8:30 a.m.–12:00 p.m. (Local time). Rocklin, CA ........................ Whitney Oaks Golf Club, 2305 Clubhouse Drive, Rocklin, CA 95765.

Dated: October 15, 2014. Lawrence Roberts, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 2014–24906 Filed 10–17–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4310–4J–P**

**GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION** 

**41 CFR Parts 300–3, 301–10, and 301– 70** 

**[FTR Case 2014–302; Docket 2014–0014, Sequence 1]** 

**RIN 3090–AJ48**

**Federal Travel Regulation; Enhancement of Privately Owned**  **Vehicle and Rental Vehicle Policy**

**AGENCY :**  Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), General Services Administration (GSA).

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  GSA is proposing to amend the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) by requiring agencies to have an internal policy for determining whether to authorize a privately owned vehicle (POV), as opposed to a rental car, in conjunction with temporary duty travel (TDY). Further, GSA proposes to specify that travelers, who have been authorized to travel via common carrier or rental car, and choose to use a POV instead, will be reimbursed at the applicable POV mileage rate. Also, this amendment proposes to add specific provisions addressing the type of rental vehicles travelers must use, as well as pre-paid refueling options and other rental car surcharges. Finally, this amendment proposes to make certain miscellaneous corrections, where applicable.

**DATES :**  Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat at one of the addresses shown below on or before December 19, 2014 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit comments identified by FTR Case 2014–302 by any of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portals: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching for ‘‘FTR Case 2014– 302.’’ Select the link ‘‘Comment Now’’ that corresponds with ‘‘FTR Case 2014– 302’’ and follow the instructions provided at the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and ‘‘FTR Case 2014–302’’ on your attached document.

• Fax: 202–208–1398.

• Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), Attn. Ms. Hada Flowers, 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405.

Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite FTR Case 2014–302 in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  For clarification of content, contact Mr. Cy Greenidge, Program Analyst, Office of Government-wide Policy, at 202–219– 2349. Contact the Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, 202–501–4755, for information pertaining to status or publication schedules. Please cite FTR

case 2014–302.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  A. Background

The FTR already provides for determining when the use of a POV or rental vehicle in conjunction with TDY could be advantageous to the Government (see FTR Part 301–10, Subparts D and E, and Part 301–70, Subpart B). The FTR also advises that when using a rental vehicle, travelers should consider renting a vehicle from a vendor that participates in the Defense Travel Management Office’s (DTMO) U.S. Government Car Rental Agreement to avail themselves of the Agreement’s benefits (see FTR section 301–10.450). It has been determined that more specific guidance regarding the use of POVs and rental cars will save agencies money when authorizing employees to travel. This proposed rule provides that agencies must have an internal policy for determining whether to authorize a POV, as opposed to a rental car, in conjunction with TDY. Additionally, GSA proposes specifying that travelers who have been authorized by their agencies to travel via common carrier or rental car, and choose to use a POV instead, will be reimbursed at the applicable POV mileage rate up to the constructive cost of the authorized mode of transportation plus per diem. Further, this amendment proposes that travelers who are authorized to use a rental car in conjunction with TDY must use the least expensive compact car available. This amendment also proposes that travelers will not be reimbursed for pre-paid refueling options for rental cars. Moreover, this amendment proposes that agencies may not reimburse travelers surcharges involved when rental car companies purchase miles from airlines and provide those miles to their vehicle customers. Finally, this amendment also proposes to make certain miscellaneous corrections, where applicable.

B. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action, and therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. This proposed rule is also exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) because it applies to agency management or personnel. D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed changes to the FTR do not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or the collection of information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

This proposed rule is also exempt from Congressional review prescribed