Rural Development Environmental Regulation for Rural Infrastructure, 49644-49648 [2019-20342]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
49644
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
to perform the work. Poultry and rabbit
products graded under temporary
grading service are eligible to be
identified with the official grademarks
only when they are processed and
graded under the supervision of a
grader.
■ 21. Amend § 70.70 by revising
paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:
§ 70.70
Payment of fees and charges.
(a) Fees and charges for any grading
service shall be paid by the interested
party making the application for such
grading service, in accordance with the
applicable provisions of this section and
§§ 70.71 through 70.78, inclusive.
(b) Fees and charges for any grading
service shall, unless otherwise required
pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section,
be paid by check, electronic funds
transfer, draft, or money order made
payable to the National Finance Center.
Payment for the service must be made
in accordance with directions on the
billing statement, and such fees and
charges must be paid in advance if
required by the official grader or other
authorized official.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 22. Amend § 70.71 by revising the
section heading, introductory text, and
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
§ 70.71 Charges for services on an
unscheduled basis.
Unless otherwise provided in this
part, the fees to be charged and
collected for any service performed, in
accordance with this part, on an
unscheduled basis shall be based on the
applicable formulas specified in this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Fees for unscheduled grading
services will be based on the time
required to perform the services. The
hourly charges will include the time
actually required to perform the grading,
waiting time, travel time, and any
clerical costs involved in issuing a
certificate. Charges to plants are as
follows:
(1) The regular hourly rate will be
charged for the first 8 hours worked per
grader per day for all days except
observed legal holidays.
(2) The overtime rate will be charged
for hours worked in excess of 8 hours
per grader per day for all days except
observed legal holidays.
(3) The holiday hourly rate will be
charged for hours worked on observed
legal holidays.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 23. Revise § 70.72 to read as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Sep 20, 2019
Jkt 247001
§ 70.72 Fees for appeal grading or review
of a grader’s decision.
The costs of an appeal grading or
review of a grader’s decision, shall be
borne by the appellant on an
unscheduled basis at rates set forth in
§ 70.71, plus any travel and additional
expenses. If the appeal grading or
review of a grader’s decision discloses
that a material error was made in the
original determination, no fee or
expenses will be charged.
§ 70.76
[Removed and Reserved]
24. Remove and reserve § 70.76.
25. Amend § 70.77 by revising the
section heading, introductory text, and
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
■
■
§ 70.77 Charges for services on a
scheduled basis.
Fees to be charged and collected for
any grading service, other than for an
appeal grading, on a scheduled grading
basis, will be determined based on the
formulas in this part. The fees to be
charged for any appeal grading will be
as provided in § 70.71.
(a) Charges. The charges for the
grading of poultry and rabbits and
edible products thereof must be paid by
the applicant for the service and will
include items listed in this section as
are applicable. Payment for the full cost
of the grading service rendered to the
applicant shall be made by the applicant
to the National Finance Center. Such
full costs shall comprise such of the
items listed in this section as are due
and included in the bill or bills covering
the period or periods during which the
grading service was rendered. Bills are
payable upon receipt.
(1) When a signed application for
service has been received, the State
supervisor or his designee will complete
a plant survey pursuant to § 70.34. The
costs for completing the plant survey
will be borne by the applicant on an
unscheduled basis as described in
§ 70.71. No charges will be assessed
when the application is required
because of a change in name or
ownership. If service is not installed
within 6 months from the date the
application is filed, or if service is
inactive due to an approved request for
removal of a grader or graders for a
period of 6 months, the application will
be considered terminated. A new
application may be filed at any time. In
addition, there will be a charge of $300
if the application is terminated at the
request of the applicant for reasons
other than for a change in location
within 12 months from the date of the
inauguration of service.
(2) Charges for the cost of each grader
assigned to a plant will be calculated as
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
described in § 70.71. Minimum fees for
service performed under a scheduled
agreement will be based on the hours of
the regular tour of duty. The Agency
reserves the right to use any grader
assigned to the plant under a scheduled
agreement to perform service for other
applicants and no charge will be
assessed to the scheduled applicant for
the number of hours charged to the
other applicant. Charges to plants are as
follows:
(i) The regular hourly rate will be
charged for hours worked in accordance
with the approved tour of duty on the
application for service between the
hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m.
(ii) The overtime rate will be charged
for hours worked in excess of the
approved tour of duty on the
application for service.
(iii) The holiday hourly rate will be
charged for hours worked on observed
legal holidays.
(iv) The night differential rate (for
regular or overtime hours) will be
charged for hours worked between 6
p.m. and 6 a.m.
(v) The Sunday differential rate (for
regular or overtime hours) will be
charged for hours worked on a Sunday.
(vi) For all hours of work performed
in a plant without an approved tour of
duty, the charge will be one of the
applicable hourly rates in § 70.71 plus
actual travel expenses incurred by AMS.
(3) A charge at the hourly rates
specified in § 70.71, plus actual travel
expenses incurred by AMS for
intermediate surveys to firms without
grading service in effect.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: September 12, 2019.
Bruce Summers,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019–20123 Filed 9–20–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Rural Utilities Service
7 CFR Part 1970
[RUS–18–Agency–0005, RBS–18–None–
0029, RHS–18–None–0026]
RIN 0572–AC44
Rural Development Environmental
Regulation for Rural Infrastructure
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA) Rural
Development (RD), comprised of the
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\23SER1.SGM
23SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Unfunded Mandates
The Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance (CFDA) numbers assigned to
This final rule contains no Federal
mandates (under the regulatory
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review
The Agency has determined that this
final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, as defined in
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.), given that the amendment
is only an administrative, procedural
change on the government’s part with
respect to obligation of funds.
Congressional Rulemaking Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
designated this rule as not a major rule,
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Executive Order 12372,
Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
In this final rule, the Agency proposes
to create limited flexibility for the
timing of obligation of funds relative to
the completion of environmental
review. The Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) does not direct agencies
to prepare a NEPA analysis before
establishing agency procedures that
supplement the CEQ regulations for
implementing NEPA. The requirements
for establishing agency NEPA
procedures are set forth at 40 CFR
1505.1 and 1507.3. The determination
that establishing agency NEPA
procedures does not require NEPA
analysis and documentation has been
upheld in Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S. Forest
Service, 73 F. Supp. 2d 962, 972–73
(S.D. III. 1999), aff’d, 230 F.3d 947, 954–
55 (7th Cir. 2000).
the RD Programs affected by this
rulemaking are as follows:
10.760—Water & Waste Disposal System
Systems for Rural Communities.
10.761—Technical Assistance and
Training Grants.
10.762—Solid Waste Management
Grants.
10.763—Emergency Community Water
Assistance Grants.
10.770—Water & Waste Disposal Loan
and Grants (Section 306C).
10.766—Community Facilities Loans
and Grants.
10.850—Rural Electrification Loans and
Loan Guarantees.
10.851—Rural Telephone Loans and
Loan Guarantees.
10.855—Distance Learning &
Telemedicine Grants.
10.857—State Bulk Fuel Revolving Loan
Fund.
10.858—Assistance to High Energy CostRural Communities.
10.863—Community Connect Grants.
10.865—Biorefinery, Renewable
Chemical, & Biobased Product
Manufacturing Assistance Program.
10.866—Repowering Assistance
Program.
10.867—Advanced Biofuel Payment
Program.
10.868—Rural Energy for America
Program.
10.886—Rural Broadband Access Loan
and Loan Guarantee Program.
10.752—ReConnect Program.
All active CFDA programs and the
CFDA Catalog can be found at the
following website: https://beta.sam.gov/
. The website also contains a PDF file
version of the Catalog that, when
printed, has the same layout as the
printed document that the Government
Publishing Office (GPO) provides. GPO
prints and sells the CFDA to interested
buyers. For information about
purchasing the Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance from GPO, call the
Superintendent of Documents at 202–
512–1800 or toll free at 866–512–1800,
or access GPO’s online bookstore at
https://bookstore.gpo.gov. Rural
Development infrastructure programs
not listed in this section nor on the
CFDA website, but which are enacted
pursuant to the Rural Electrification Act
of 1936, 7 U.S.C. 901 et seq., the
Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act of 1972, 7 U.S.C. 1921
et seq., or any other Congressional act
for Rural Development, will be covered
by the requirements of this action when
enacted.
(RBS), Rural Housing Service (RHS),
and Rural Utilities Service (RUS),
hereafter referred to as the Agency, is
issuing a final rule to update the
Agency’s Environmental Policies and
Procedures regulation (7 CFR 1970) to
allow the Agency Administrators
limited flexibility to obligate federal
funds for infrastructure projects prior to
completion of the environmental review
while ensuring full compliance with
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) procedures, prior to project
construction and disbursement of any
RD funding. This change will allow RD
to more fully meet the Administration’s
goals to speed the initiation of
infrastructure projects and encourage
planned community economic
development without additional cost to
taxpayers or change to environmental
review requirements.
DATES: Effective September 23, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Edna Primrose, Assistant Administrator,
Water and Environmental Programs,
Rural Utilities Service, USDA Rural
Development, 1400 Independence Ave.
SW, Washington, DC 20250–1570,
Telephone (202) 720–0986, Email
address: Edna.Primrose@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This final rule has been determined to
be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review and therefore has
not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
The Programs listed in the Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance under the
following numbers are subject to the
provisions of Executive Order 12372
which requires Intergovernmental
Consultation with state and local
officials:
10.760—Water & Waste Disposal System
Systems for Rural Communities.
10.763—Emergency Community Water
Assistance Grants.
10.766—Community Facilities Loans.
10.770—Water & Waste Disposal Loan
and Grants (Section 306C).
10.855—Distance Learning &
Telemedicine Grants and Grants.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Sep 20, 2019
Jkt 247001
49645
This final rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. RUS has determined
that this final rule meets the applicable
standards provided in section 3 of the
Executive Order. In addition, all state
and local laws and regulations that are
in conflict with this rule will be
preempted, no retroactive effect will be
given to this rule, and, in accordance
with Sec 212(e) of the Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994
(7 U.S.C. 6912(e)), if any, must be
exhausted before an action against the
Department or its agencies may be
initiated.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The policies contained in this final
rule do not have any substantial direct
effect on 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. Nor does
this final rule impose substantial direct
compliance costs on state and local
governments. Therefore, consultation
with states is not required.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification
National Environmental Policy Act
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\23SER1.SGM
23SER1
49646
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
provision of Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995) for State,
local, and tribal governments or the
private sector. Therefore, this final rule
is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
Information Collection and
Recordkeeping Requirements
This final rule contains no new
reporting or recordkeeping burdens
under OMB control number 0572–0127
that would require approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Background
The United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development
(RD) programs provide loans, grants and
loan guarantees to support investment
in rural infrastructure to spur rural
economic development, create jobs,
improve the quality of life, and address
the health and safety needs of rural
residents. Infrastructure investment is
an important national policy priority.
As directed by E.O. 13807, Establishing
Discipline and Accountability in the
Environmental Review and Permitting
Process for Infrastructure Projects, in
2017, USDA as a member of the Federal
Permitting Improvement Steering
Council has reviewed its NEPA
implementing regulations and policies
to identify impediments to efficient and
effective environmental reviews and
authorizations for infrastructure
projects. This final rule is part of that
effort to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of RD’s environmental
reviews and authorizations for
infrastructure projects in rural America.
On April 25, 2017, the President created
the Interagency Task Force on
Agriculture and Rural Prosperity (Task
Force) through E.O. 13790 and
appointed the Secretary of Agriculture
as the Task Force’s Chair. Among the
purposes and functions of the Task
Force was to, ‘‘. . . identify legislative,
regulatory, and policy changes to
promote in rural America agriculture,
economic development, job growth,
infrastructure improvements,
technological innovation, energy
security, and quality of life, including
changes that remove barriers to
economic prosperity and quality of life
in rural America.’’ The Task Force
Report issued on October 21, 2017,
included calls to action on achieving eConnectivity for Rural America,
improving rural quality of life,
harnessing technological innovation and
developing the rural economy.
On November 28, 2018 the Agency
concurrently published a proposed and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Sep 20, 2019
Jkt 247001
final rule as a direct final rule without
prior proposal because the Agency
viewed this change as a noncontroversial action and anticipated no
adverse comments. The purpose of the
proposed and direct final rule was to
update the Agency’s Environmental
Policies and Procedures regulation (7
CFR 1970) to allow the Agency
Administrators limited flexibility to
obligate federal funds for infrastructure
projects prior to completion of the
environmental review while ensuring
full compliance with National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
procedures prior to project construction
and disbursement of any RD funding.
The public comment period for the rule
change ended on December 24, 2018.
The rule was to be effective January 7,
2019, without further action, unless the
Agency received significant adverse
comments or, an intent to submit a
significant adverse comment, by
December 24, 2018. The Agency
proposed to publish a a timely Federal
Register document withdrawing the rule
if significant adverse comments were
received.
Due to the lapse in funding that
occurred from December 23, 2018
through January 25, 2019, the Agency
was unable to publish a Federal
Register notice withdrawing the rule by
January 7, 2019. However, the Agency
has not placed the rule into effect, nor
taken any final actions with respect to
the rule and is responding to public
comments in this final rule. The Agency
received four (4) comments in support
of the rule from Daniel Spatz, Dave
Anderson, Bly Community Action
Team, and National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association. The Agency
also received a total of six letters with
adverse comments from the following
fifteen (15) organizations and three (3)
individuals: Robert Ukeiley, Dinah Bear,
Patricia Gerrodette, Center for Biological
Diversity (2 separate commenters), Earth
Justice, Environmental Law and Policy
Center, Environmental Information
Protection Center, Grand Canyon Trust,
House/Citizens for Environmental
Justice, International Fund for Animal
Welfare, Klamath Forest Alliance,
Natural Resources Defense Council (2
separate commenters), San Juan Citizens
Alliance, Save EPA, Sierra Club,
Southern Environmental Law Center,
Western Environmental Law Center,
Western Watersheds.
Purpose of the Regulatory Action
This rulemaking fulfills the mandate
of E.O. 13807 as well as the goals of the
President’s Interagency Task Force on
Agriculture and Rural Prosperity by
identifying regulatory changes that
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
promote economic development and
improve the quality of life in rural
America. The RD infrastructure projects
impacted by this rule are often critical
to the health and safety and quality of
life in rural communities. In some cases,
funding decisions made by Rural
Development are the first step upon
which a much larger process of
community economic development
depends. This amendment to existing
regulation will allow the Agency to
obligate funding conditioned upon the
full and satisfactory completion of
environmental review for infrastructure
projects. This change will give
applicants, and often the distressed
communities they represent, some
comfort to proceed with an economic
development strategy, including the
planning process associated with NEPA,
without fear that funds may be
rescinded before the NEPA process is
completed. With this change in place,
RD can more fully meet the
government’s goals of speeding up the
initiation of infrastructure projects,
encouraging planned community
economic development, and leveraging
investment without additional cost to
taxpayers or any change in
environmental review requirements.
Infrastructure projects covered by this
final rule include those, such as
broadband, telecommunications,
electric, energy efficiency, smart grid,
water, sewer, transportation, and energy
capital investments in physical plant
and equipment.
Changes to the Current Regulation.
This final rule adopts the changes to
7 CFR 1970 from the proposed and
direct final rules concurrently published
in the Federal Register on November 23,
2018. It revises 7 CFR 1970.11(b) to
change the point at which the
environmental review must be
completed prior to obligation in all
cases. The rule change requires the
environmental review process to be
completed prior to obligation except in
cases where the Administrator deems it
necessary to allow for the
environmental review to occur after
obligation, contingent upon the
conclusion of the environmental review
process prior to any action that would
have an adverse effect on the
environment or limit the choices of any
reasonable alternatives. In instances
where the environmental review is not
completed by the end of the fiscal year
after the funds were obligated or when
findings of the environmental review do
not support the decision to proceed
with a proposed action, the Agency will
rescind funds and reverse the decision
to proceed. Nothing in this final rule
E:\FR\FM\23SER1.SGM
23SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
reduces RD’s obligation to complete the
NEPA planning process prior to
foreclosing reasonable alternatives to
the federal action.
Comments
Issue 1: Two individuals and two
organizations expressed support for the
proposed rule citing that the ability to
obligate funds prior to completion of the
NEPA process will allow borrowers to
more easily secure financing for
projects. They also commented that the
rule change to expedite the timeframe
for completing the NEPA process will
provide an ability to more quickly
initiate projects.
RUS Response: The Agency agrees
that allowing obligation of funds prior
to completion of the NEPA process will
allow greater certainty for borrowers in
securing funding for the projects. In
reviewing the final regulation, to ensure
conformity with NEPA regulations, the
Agency wants to be clear what it means
by providing ‘‘certainty’’ or ‘‘comfort’’ to
a loan applicant. Due to the
Departmental financial processes, even
funds that are ‘‘available until
expended’’ are swept at the end of the
fiscal year and sometimes not returned
to the programs for use for several
months. That situation creates a period
of time where projects cannot move
forward even if the environmental
review is completed because funds are
not available to be obligated to a project.
What the Agency means by ‘‘comfort’’ is
that the funds will be available for the
project once the environmental review
is completed. The purpose of the change
is not to extend the NEPA time frame
but to allow obligation prior to
completing all requirements of NEPA.
Issue 2: Three individuals and fifteen
organizations commented that the
application of the direct to final rule in
this instance is inconsistent with the
Administrative Procedures Act because
the changes to the regulations are major
and substantive.
RUS Response: This rule was
published concurrently with Proposed
Rule 83 FR 59318 (November 23, 2018).
Because adverse comments were
received on the rule, RD did not allow
the final rule with comment to go into
effect. It has, instead, considered all
comments received during the comment
period and is addressing these in this
notice in accordance with the
Administrative Procedures Act.
Unfortunately, due to the lapse in
government funding in January 2019,
the Agency was unable to notify the
public that the final rule did not go into
effect.
Issue 3: Two individuals and fifteen
organizations commented that the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Sep 20, 2019
Jkt 247001
Agency did not provide support and
documentation to its decision to allow
completion of environmental reviews
after the decision to obligate funds to a
project, and that the preamble of the
proposed rule is notably silent on
examples of how the process that has
existed since 1970 is problematic for
either applicants or agencies. They state
that there is no record showing the
problem this rule is trying to address
and no data or record of the scope of the
issue.
RUS Response: The Agency has been
hearing about the effect of the timing of
NEPA reviews and the inability of
potential applicants to secure additional
financing for a very long time. Despite
this public perception, the agency has
no data to support this contention. To
the contrary, the agency has no evidence
that its environmental reviews impede
projects or the attainment of outside
funding. Because the agency believes
there were needed rural development
projects that were never submitted for
application because of the perceived
delay in processing, the agency has
undertaken to change the rule. As stated
in the final rule with comment, and the
proposed rule, the agency is attempting
to give applicants ‘‘comfort’’ with the
extended timing. It does not anticipate
environmental reviews to change in any
manner. In reviewing the final
regulation, to ensure conformity with
NEPA regulations, the Agency wants to
be clear what it means by providing
‘‘certainty’’ or ‘‘comfort’’ to a loan
applicant. Due to the Departmental
financial processes, even funds that are
‘‘available until expended’’ are swept at
the end of the fiscal year and sometimes
not returned to the programs for use for
several months. That situation creates a
period of time where projects cannot
move forward even if the environmental
review is completed because funds are
not available to be obligated to a project.
What the Agency means by ‘‘comfort’’ is
that the funds will be available for the
project once the environmental review
is completed. The purpose of the change
is not to extend the NEPA time frame
but to allow obligation prior to
completing all requirements of NEPA.
The agency notes that four individuals
responded to the proposed rule
supporting the change on this basis.
Issue 4: Fifteen organizations
commented that allowing an agency to
proceed with a decision prior to
completing the required environmental
review under NEPA disregards the
agency’s responsibility to inform the
public and meaningfully consider
public comments prior to decisions.
They contend that deferring public
input to a late, post-decisional stage of
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
49647
the decision-making process
undermines the meaningfulness of
public input and, as a result, will have
a chilling effect on the willingness of
the public to weigh in on decisions
impacting their communities.
RUS Response: The Agency will
continue to provide the same
opportunity for public notice and
comment and anticipates that the public
input on proposed projects will not be
significantly altered, if at all. Over 93
percent of all required reviews are
already performed within 10 days. As
stated above, public perception of this
process and the actual time for reviews
are not in sync. As a result, the Agency
does not believe that the public’s input
into agency decision-making will be
impacted.
Issue 5: Three individuals and fifteen
organizations stated that the Agency’s
plan to allow post-decisional
completion of the environmental review
does not fulfill its responsibility to
incorporate environmental impacts into
the decision-making process. Because,
they argue, evaluation of alternatives
would take place after the decision to
proceed, the proposal would prejudice
the selection of the reasonable
alternatives. CEQ’s regulations
explicitly state that agencies shall not
commit resources prejudicing selection
of alternatives. The NEPA statute does
not permit an agency to act first and
comply later, nor does it permit an
agency to condition performance of its
obligation of a showing of irreparable
harm. Furthermore, the courts have held
that ‘‘it is far easier to influence an
initial choice that to change a mind
already made up.’’ One commenter
noted that the proposed rule would upend guidance issued in 2017 and
revised in 2018 that instructs RD
agencies that environmental review
must be completed and issued prior to
agency issuance of any conditional
commitment.
RUS Response: The Agency believes
that completing the NEPA process postobligation will continue to allow
consideration of alternatives because it
will rescind funds should the outcome
of the NEPA process require any
significant changes to the project. As a
result, the public will have the same
due consideration and public notice and
comment requirements will not change.
Issue 6: One organization stated that
the proposed rule conflicts with Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations of 40 CFR 1500 which
require that environmental analysis be
completed at the earliest possible time.
Section 1501.2 of the CEQ regulations,
is aptly named ‘‘Apply NEPA early in
the process.’’ This section provides that
E:\FR\FM\23SER1.SGM
23SER1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
49648
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
agencies shall integrate the NEPA
process ‘‘at the earliest possible time to
ensure that planning and decisions
reflect environmental values, to avoid
delays later in the process, and to head
off potential conflicts.’’
RUS Response: The Agency believes
that the proposed timing of the
environmental process is still early
enough in the planning stage to ensure
decisions will reflect environmental
values. Furthermore, the Agency believe
that this process will result in fewer
project delays, and will in fact, expedite
the review process.
Issue 7: Three individuals and fifteen
organizations commented that allowing
rescission of funds if the results of an
environmental review do not ultimately
support to the Agency’s decision to
obligate, does not undo the harm, error,
or fatal bias that has already been
introduced and tainted the process.
Allowing agencies to reconsider and
rescind a decision to obligate funds after
review in no way corrects otherwise
clearly unlawful application of NEPA.
They argue that this approach would
also leave the responsible agency
official in the position of either taking
away funding from an outside entity or
pressuring the environmental review
staff to expedite the process. The most
likely, they argue, is shortchanging the
environmental review process. The
public commenting on such reviews
will understand the initial decision has
already been made, that bias has
irrevocably attached, and that they are
essentially asking the agency to ‘‘redecide’’ the decision to obligate funds.
Making a commitment prematurely may
also cause harm to the applicant
because the commitment may not be
met, pending the outcome of the NEPA
process.
RUS Response: The Agency believes
that it will continue to make unbiased
decisions on its environmental reviews,
and that since 93 percent of reviews are
finished before 10 days, the agency’s
decision-making process will not be
influenced.
Issue 8: Fifteen organizations
commented that the arbitrary time limit
for completion of the environmental
review prior to the end of following
fiscal year after obligation, conflicts
with CEQ regulations that state that
prescribed universal time limit for
entire NEPA process is too inflexible
and should be appropriate to individual
actions. Therefore, they argue, the
proposed time limits would result in
rushed reviews to avoid rescinding
funds.
RUS Response: The Agency does not
believe that the completion deadline for
the environmental review is arbitrary.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Sep 20, 2019
Jkt 247001
As mentioned earlier, it was selected as
a time that would give applicants
confidence in going forward with
projects. In addition, the agency would
not rush reviews to avoid rescinding, as
its current rate of processing is already
extremely efficient. Those projects that
would require more time, are already
the result of reviews outside of the
Agency.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1970
Administrative practice and
procedure, Buildings and facilities,
Environmental impact statements,
Environmental Protection, Grant
programs, Housing, Loan programs,
Natural resources, Utilities.
Accordingly, for reasons set forth in
the preamble, part 1970, title 7, Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 1970—ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
1. The authority citation for part 1970
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6941 et seq., 42 U.S.C.
4241 et seq.; 40 CFR parts 1500–1508; 5
U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1989; and 42 U.S.C.
1480.
2. In § 1970.11, revise paragraph (b) to
read as follow:
■
§ 1970.11 Timing of the environmental
review process.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The environmental review process
must be concluded before the obligation
of funds; except for infrastructure
projects where the assurance that funds
will be available for community health,
safety, or economic development has
been determined as necessary by the
Agency Administrator. At the discretion
of the Agency Administrator, funds may
be obligated contingent upon the
conclusion of the environmental review
process prior to any action that would
have an adverse effect on the
environment or limit the choices of any
reasonable alternatives. Funds so
obligated shall be rescinded if the
Agency cannot conclude the
environmental review process before the
end of the fiscal year after the year in
which the funds were obligated, or if the
Agency determines that it cannot
proceed with approval based on
findings in the environmental review
process. For the purposes of this
section, infrastructure projects shall
include projects such as broadband,
telecommunications, electric, energy
efficiency, smart grid, water, sewer,
transportation, and energy capital
investments in physical plant and
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
equipment, but not investments
authorized in the Housing Act of 1949.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: September 16, 2019.
Misty Giles,
Chief of Staff, Rural Development.
Bill Northey,
Under Secretary, Farm Production and
Conservation.
[FR Doc. 2019–20342 Filed 9–20–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 23
[Docket No. FAA–2019–0745; Special
Conditions No. 23–297–SC]
Special Conditions: Diamond Aircraft
Industries of Canada Model DA–62
Airplanes; Electronic Engine Control
System Installation
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final special conditions; request
for comments.
AGENCY:
These special conditions are
issued for the Diamond Aircraft
Industries of Canada (DAI Canada)
Model DA–62 airplane. This airplane
will have a novel or unusual design
feature associated with installation of an
engine that includes an electronic
engine control system. The applicable
airworthiness regulations do not contain
adequate or appropriate safety standards
for this design feature. These special
conditions contain the additional safety
standards that the Administrator
considers necessary to establish a level
of safety equivalent to that established
by the existing airworthiness standards.
DATES: The effective date of these
special conditions is September 23,
2019. The FAA must receive your
comments by October 23, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Send comments identified
by docket number FAA–2019–0745
using any of the following methods:
D Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
D Mail: Send comments to Docket
Operations, M–30, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Room W12–140, West
Building, Ground Floor, Washington,
DC 20590–0001.
D Hand Delivery of Courier: Take
comments to Docket Operations in
Room W12–140 of the West Building,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\23SER1.SGM
23SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 184 (Monday, September 23, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49644-49648]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20342]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Rural Utilities Service
7 CFR Part 1970
[RUS-18-Agency-0005, RBS-18-None-0029, RHS-18-None-0026]
RIN 0572-AC44
Rural Development Environmental Regulation for Rural
Infrastructure
AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural
Development (RD), comprised of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service
[[Page 49645]]
(RBS), Rural Housing Service (RHS), and Rural Utilities Service (RUS),
hereafter referred to as the Agency, is issuing a final rule to update
the Agency's Environmental Policies and Procedures regulation (7 CFR
1970) to allow the Agency Administrators limited flexibility to
obligate federal funds for infrastructure projects prior to completion
of the environmental review while ensuring full compliance with
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures, prior to project
construction and disbursement of any RD funding. This change will allow
RD to more fully meet the Administration's goals to speed the
initiation of infrastructure projects and encourage planned community
economic development without additional cost to taxpayers or change to
environmental review requirements.
DATES: Effective September 23, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edna Primrose, Assistant
Administrator, Water and Environmental Programs, Rural Utilities
Service, USDA Rural Development, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington,
DC 20250-1570, Telephone (202) 720-0986, Email address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review and
therefore has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
Congressional Rulemaking Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule
as not a major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs
The Programs listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
under the following numbers are subject to the provisions of Executive
Order 12372 which requires Intergovernmental Consultation with state
and local officials:
10.760--Water & Waste Disposal System Systems for Rural Communities.
10.763--Emergency Community Water Assistance Grants.
10.766--Community Facilities Loans.
10.770--Water & Waste Disposal Loan and Grants (Section 306C).
10.855--Distance Learning & Telemedicine Grants and Grants.
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. RUS has determined that this final rule meets the
applicable standards provided in section 3 of the Executive Order. In
addition, all state and local laws and regulations that are in conflict
with this rule will be preempted, no retroactive effect will be given
to this rule, and, in accordance with Sec 212(e) of the Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6912(e)), if any, must
be exhausted before an action against the Department or its agencies
may be initiated.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The policies contained in this final rule do not have any
substantial direct effect on 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. Nor does this
final rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and
local governments. Therefore, consultation with states is not required.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification
The Agency has determined that this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
given that the amendment is only an administrative, procedural change
on the government's part with respect to obligation of funds.
National Environmental Policy Act
In this final rule, the Agency proposes to create limited
flexibility for the timing of obligation of funds relative to the
completion of environmental review. The Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) does not direct agencies to prepare a NEPA analysis
before establishing agency procedures that supplement the CEQ
regulations for implementing NEPA. The requirements for establishing
agency NEPA procedures are set forth at 40 CFR 1505.1 and 1507.3. The
determination that establishing agency NEPA procedures does not require
NEPA analysis and documentation has been upheld in Heartwood, Inc. v.
U.S. Forest Service, 73 F. Supp. 2d 962, 972-73 (S.D. III. 1999),
aff'd, 230 F.3d 947, 954-55 (7th Cir. 2000).
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) numbers assigned
to the RD Programs affected by this rulemaking are as follows:
10.760--Water & Waste Disposal System Systems for Rural Communities.
10.761--Technical Assistance and Training Grants.
10.762--Solid Waste Management Grants.
10.763--Emergency Community Water Assistance Grants.
10.770--Water & Waste Disposal Loan and Grants (Section 306C).
10.766--Community Facilities Loans and Grants.
10.850--Rural Electrification Loans and Loan Guarantees.
10.851--Rural Telephone Loans and Loan Guarantees.
10.855--Distance Learning & Telemedicine Grants.
10.857--State Bulk Fuel Revolving Loan Fund.
10.858--Assistance to High Energy Cost-Rural Communities.
10.863--Community Connect Grants.
10.865--Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, & Biobased Product
Manufacturing Assistance Program.
10.866--Repowering Assistance Program.
10.867--Advanced Biofuel Payment Program.
10.868--Rural Energy for America Program.
10.886--Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program.
10.752--ReConnect Program.
All active CFDA programs and the CFDA Catalog can be found at the
following website: https://beta.sam.gov/. The website also contains a
PDF file version of the Catalog that, when printed, has the same layout
as the printed document that the Government Publishing Office (GPO)
provides. GPO prints and sells the CFDA to interested buyers. For
information about purchasing the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
from GPO, call the Superintendent of Documents at 202- 512-1800 or toll
free at 866-512-1800, or access GPO's online bookstore at https://bookstore.gpo.gov. Rural Development infrastructure programs not listed
in this section nor on the CFDA website, but which are enacted pursuant
to the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, 7 U.S.C. 901 et seq., the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972, 7 U.S.C. 1921 et
seq., or any other Congressional act for Rural Development, will be
covered by the requirements of this action when enacted.
Unfunded Mandates
This final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
[[Page 49646]]
provision of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995) for
State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore,
this final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and
205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Information Collection and Recordkeeping Requirements
This final rule contains no new reporting or recordkeeping burdens
under OMB control number 0572-0127 that would require approval under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Background
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural
Development (RD) programs provide loans, grants and loan guarantees to
support investment in rural infrastructure to spur rural economic
development, create jobs, improve the quality of life, and address the
health and safety needs of rural residents. Infrastructure investment
is an important national policy priority. As directed by E.O. 13807,
Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review
and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects, in 2017, USDA as a
member of the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council has
reviewed its NEPA implementing regulations and policies to identify
impediments to efficient and effective environmental reviews and
authorizations for infrastructure projects. This final rule is part of
that effort to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of RD's
environmental reviews and authorizations for infrastructure projects in
rural America. On April 25, 2017, the President created the Interagency
Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity (Task Force) through
E.O. 13790 and appointed the Secretary of Agriculture as the Task
Force's Chair. Among the purposes and functions of the Task Force was
to, ``. . . identify legislative, regulatory, and policy changes to
promote in rural America agriculture, economic development, job growth,
infrastructure improvements, technological innovation, energy security,
and quality of life, including changes that remove barriers to economic
prosperity and quality of life in rural America.'' The Task Force
Report issued on October 21, 2017, included calls to action on
achieving e-Connectivity for Rural America, improving rural quality of
life, harnessing technological innovation and developing the rural
economy.
On November 28, 2018 the Agency concurrently published a proposed
and final rule as a direct final rule without prior proposal because
the Agency viewed this change as a non-controversial action and
anticipated no adverse comments. The purpose of the proposed and direct
final rule was to update the Agency's Environmental Policies and
Procedures regulation (7 CFR 1970) to allow the Agency Administrators
limited flexibility to obligate federal funds for infrastructure
projects prior to completion of the environmental review while ensuring
full compliance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
procedures prior to project construction and disbursement of any RD
funding. The public comment period for the rule change ended on
December 24, 2018. The rule was to be effective January 7, 2019,
without further action, unless the Agency received significant adverse
comments or, an intent to submit a significant adverse comment, by
December 24, 2018. The Agency proposed to publish a a timely Federal
Register document withdrawing the rule if significant adverse comments
were received.
Due to the lapse in funding that occurred from December 23, 2018
through January 25, 2019, the Agency was unable to publish a Federal
Register notice withdrawing the rule by January 7, 2019. However, the
Agency has not placed the rule into effect, nor taken any final actions
with respect to the rule and is responding to public comments in this
final rule. The Agency received four (4) comments in support of the
rule from Daniel Spatz, Dave Anderson, Bly Community Action Team, and
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. The Agency also
received a total of six letters with adverse comments from the
following fifteen (15) organizations and three (3) individuals: Robert
Ukeiley, Dinah Bear, Patricia Gerrodette, Center for Biological
Diversity (2 separate commenters), Earth Justice, Environmental Law and
Policy Center, Environmental Information Protection Center, Grand
Canyon Trust, House/Citizens for Environmental Justice, International
Fund for Animal Welfare, Klamath Forest Alliance, Natural Resources
Defense Council (2 separate commenters), San Juan Citizens Alliance,
Save EPA, Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Center, Western
Environmental Law Center, Western Watersheds.
Purpose of the Regulatory Action
This rulemaking fulfills the mandate of E.O. 13807 as well as the
goals of the President's Interagency Task Force on Agriculture and
Rural Prosperity by identifying regulatory changes that promote
economic development and improve the quality of life in rural America.
The RD infrastructure projects impacted by this rule are often critical
to the health and safety and quality of life in rural communities. In
some cases, funding decisions made by Rural Development are the first
step upon which a much larger process of community economic development
depends. This amendment to existing regulation will allow the Agency to
obligate funding conditioned upon the full and satisfactory completion
of environmental review for infrastructure projects. This change will
give applicants, and often the distressed communities they represent,
some comfort to proceed with an economic development strategy,
including the planning process associated with NEPA, without fear that
funds may be rescinded before the NEPA process is completed. With this
change in place, RD can more fully meet the government's goals of
speeding up the initiation of infrastructure projects, encouraging
planned community economic development, and leveraging investment
without additional cost to taxpayers or any change in environmental
review requirements. Infrastructure projects covered by this final rule
include those, such as broadband, telecommunications, electric, energy
efficiency, smart grid, water, sewer, transportation, and energy
capital investments in physical plant and equipment.
Changes to the Current Regulation.
This final rule adopts the changes to 7 CFR 1970 from the proposed
and direct final rules concurrently published in the Federal Register
on November 23, 2018. It revises 7 CFR 1970.11(b) to change the point
at which the environmental review must be completed prior to obligation
in all cases. The rule change requires the environmental review process
to be completed prior to obligation except in cases where the
Administrator deems it necessary to allow for the environmental review
to occur after obligation, contingent upon the conclusion of the
environmental review process prior to any action that would have an
adverse effect on the environment or limit the choices of any
reasonable alternatives. In instances where the environmental review is
not completed by the end of the fiscal year after the funds were
obligated or when findings of the environmental review do not support
the decision to proceed with a proposed action, the Agency will rescind
funds and reverse the decision to proceed. Nothing in this final rule
[[Page 49647]]
reduces RD's obligation to complete the NEPA planning process prior to
foreclosing reasonable alternatives to the federal action.
Comments
Issue 1: Two individuals and two organizations expressed support
for the proposed rule citing that the ability to obligate funds prior
to completion of the NEPA process will allow borrowers to more easily
secure financing for projects. They also commented that the rule change
to expedite the timeframe for completing the NEPA process will provide
an ability to more quickly initiate projects.
RUS Response: The Agency agrees that allowing obligation of funds
prior to completion of the NEPA process will allow greater certainty
for borrowers in securing funding for the projects. In reviewing the
final regulation, to ensure conformity with NEPA regulations, the
Agency wants to be clear what it means by providing ``certainty'' or
``comfort'' to a loan applicant. Due to the Departmental financial
processes, even funds that are ``available until expended'' are swept
at the end of the fiscal year and sometimes not returned to the
programs for use for several months. That situation creates a period of
time where projects cannot move forward even if the environmental
review is completed because funds are not available to be obligated to
a project. What the Agency means by ``comfort'' is that the funds will
be available for the project once the environmental review is
completed. The purpose of the change is not to extend the NEPA time
frame but to allow obligation prior to completing all requirements of
NEPA.
Issue 2: Three individuals and fifteen organizations commented that
the application of the direct to final rule in this instance is
inconsistent with the Administrative Procedures Act because the changes
to the regulations are major and substantive.
RUS Response: This rule was published concurrently with Proposed
Rule 83 FR 59318 (November 23, 2018). Because adverse comments were
received on the rule, RD did not allow the final rule with comment to
go into effect. It has, instead, considered all comments received
during the comment period and is addressing these in this notice in
accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act. Unfortunately, due
to the lapse in government funding in January 2019, the Agency was
unable to notify the public that the final rule did not go into effect.
Issue 3: Two individuals and fifteen organizations commented that
the Agency did not provide support and documentation to its decision to
allow completion of environmental reviews after the decision to
obligate funds to a project, and that the preamble of the proposed rule
is notably silent on examples of how the process that has existed since
1970 is problematic for either applicants or agencies. They state that
there is no record showing the problem this rule is trying to address
and no data or record of the scope of the issue.
RUS Response: The Agency has been hearing about the effect of the
timing of NEPA reviews and the inability of potential applicants to
secure additional financing for a very long time. Despite this public
perception, the agency has no data to support this contention. To the
contrary, the agency has no evidence that its environmental reviews
impede projects or the attainment of outside funding. Because the
agency believes there were needed rural development projects that were
never submitted for application because of the perceived delay in
processing, the agency has undertaken to change the rule. As stated in
the final rule with comment, and the proposed rule, the agency is
attempting to give applicants ``comfort'' with the extended timing. It
does not anticipate environmental reviews to change in any manner. In
reviewing the final regulation, to ensure conformity with NEPA
regulations, the Agency wants to be clear what it means by providing
``certainty'' or ``comfort'' to a loan applicant. Due to the
Departmental financial processes, even funds that are ``available until
expended'' are swept at the end of the fiscal year and sometimes not
returned to the programs for use for several months. That situation
creates a period of time where projects cannot move forward even if the
environmental review is completed because funds are not available to be
obligated to a project. What the Agency means by ``comfort'' is that
the funds will be available for the project once the environmental
review is completed. The purpose of the change is not to extend the
NEPA time frame but to allow obligation prior to completing all
requirements of NEPA. The agency notes that four individuals responded
to the proposed rule supporting the change on this basis.
Issue 4: Fifteen organizations commented that allowing an agency to
proceed with a decision prior to completing the required environmental
review under NEPA disregards the agency's responsibility to inform the
public and meaningfully consider public comments prior to decisions.
They contend that deferring public input to a late, post-decisional
stage of the decision-making process undermines the meaningfulness of
public input and, as a result, will have a chilling effect on the
willingness of the public to weigh in on decisions impacting their
communities.
RUS Response: The Agency will continue to provide the same
opportunity for public notice and comment and anticipates that the
public input on proposed projects will not be significantly altered, if
at all. Over 93 percent of all required reviews are already performed
within 10 days. As stated above, public perception of this process and
the actual time for reviews are not in sync. As a result, the Agency
does not believe that the public's input into agency decision-making
will be impacted.
Issue 5: Three individuals and fifteen organizations stated that
the Agency's plan to allow post-decisional completion of the
environmental review does not fulfill its responsibility to incorporate
environmental impacts into the decision-making process. Because, they
argue, evaluation of alternatives would take place after the decision
to proceed, the proposal would prejudice the selection of the
reasonable alternatives. CEQ's regulations explicitly state that
agencies shall not commit resources prejudicing selection of
alternatives. The NEPA statute does not permit an agency to act first
and comply later, nor does it permit an agency to condition performance
of its obligation of a showing of irreparable harm. Furthermore, the
courts have held that ``it is far easier to influence an initial choice
that to change a mind already made up.'' One commenter noted that the
proposed rule would up-end guidance issued in 2017 and revised in 2018
that instructs RD agencies that environmental review must be completed
and issued prior to agency issuance of any conditional commitment.
RUS Response: The Agency believes that completing the NEPA process
post-obligation will continue to allow consideration of alternatives
because it will rescind funds should the outcome of the NEPA process
require any significant changes to the project. As a result, the public
will have the same due consideration and public notice and comment
requirements will not change.
Issue 6: One organization stated that the proposed rule conflicts
with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations of 40 CFR 1500
which require that environmental analysis be completed at the earliest
possible time. Section 1501.2 of the CEQ regulations, is aptly named
``Apply NEPA early in the process.'' This section provides that
[[Page 49648]]
agencies shall integrate the NEPA process ``at the earliest possible
time to ensure that planning and decisions reflect environmental
values, to avoid delays later in the process, and to head off potential
conflicts.''
RUS Response: The Agency believes that the proposed timing of the
environmental process is still early enough in the planning stage to
ensure decisions will reflect environmental values. Furthermore, the
Agency believe that this process will result in fewer project delays,
and will in fact, expedite the review process.
Issue 7: Three individuals and fifteen organizations commented that
allowing rescission of funds if the results of an environmental review
do not ultimately support to the Agency's decision to obligate, does
not undo the harm, error, or fatal bias that has already been
introduced and tainted the process. Allowing agencies to reconsider and
rescind a decision to obligate funds after review in no way corrects
otherwise clearly unlawful application of NEPA. They argue that this
approach would also leave the responsible agency official in the
position of either taking away funding from an outside entity or
pressuring the environmental review staff to expedite the process. The
most likely, they argue, is shortchanging the environmental review
process. The public commenting on such reviews will understand the
initial decision has already been made, that bias has irrevocably
attached, and that they are essentially asking the agency to ``re-
decide'' the decision to obligate funds. Making a commitment
prematurely may also cause harm to the applicant because the commitment
may not be met, pending the outcome of the NEPA process.
RUS Response: The Agency believes that it will continue to make
unbiased decisions on its environmental reviews, and that since 93
percent of reviews are finished before 10 days, the agency's decision-
making process will not be influenced.
Issue 8: Fifteen organizations commented that the arbitrary time
limit for completion of the environmental review prior to the end of
following fiscal year after obligation, conflicts with CEQ regulations
that state that prescribed universal time limit for entire NEPA process
is too inflexible and should be appropriate to individual actions.
Therefore, they argue, the proposed time limits would result in rushed
reviews to avoid rescinding funds.
RUS Response: The Agency does not believe that the completion
deadline for the environmental review is arbitrary. As mentioned
earlier, it was selected as a time that would give applicants
confidence in going forward with projects. In addition, the agency
would not rush reviews to avoid rescinding, as its current rate of
processing is already extremely efficient. Those projects that would
require more time, are already the result of reviews outside of the
Agency.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1970
Administrative practice and procedure, Buildings and facilities,
Environmental impact statements, Environmental Protection, Grant
programs, Housing, Loan programs, Natural resources, Utilities.
Accordingly, for reasons set forth in the preamble, part 1970,
title 7, Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 1970--ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
0
1. The authority citation for part 1970 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6941 et seq., 42 U.S.C. 4241 et seq.; 40
CFR parts 1500-1508; 5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1989; and 42 U.S.C.
1480.
0
2. In Sec. 1970.11, revise paragraph (b) to read as follow:
Sec. 1970.11 Timing of the environmental review process.
* * * * *
(b) The environmental review process must be concluded before the
obligation of funds; except for infrastructure projects where the
assurance that funds will be available for community health, safety, or
economic development has been determined as necessary by the Agency
Administrator. At the discretion of the Agency Administrator, funds may
be obligated contingent upon the conclusion of the environmental review
process prior to any action that would have an adverse effect on the
environment or limit the choices of any reasonable alternatives. Funds
so obligated shall be rescinded if the Agency cannot conclude the
environmental review process before the end of the fiscal year after
the year in which the funds were obligated, or if the Agency determines
that it cannot proceed with approval based on findings in the
environmental review process. For the purposes of this section,
infrastructure projects shall include projects such as broadband,
telecommunications, electric, energy efficiency, smart grid, water,
sewer, transportation, and energy capital investments in physical plant
and equipment, but not investments authorized in the Housing Act of
1949.
* * * * *
Dated: September 16, 2019.
Misty Giles,
Chief of Staff, Rural Development.
Bill Northey,
Under Secretary, Farm Production and Conservation.
[FR Doc. 2019-20342 Filed 9-20-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
