National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

7 CFR Part 372

[Docket No. 93-165-3]

RIN 0579-AA33

National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: These final procedures set forth the principles and practices

the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service will follow to comply

with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Council on

Environmental Quality regulations, and the U.S. Department of

Agriculture regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy

Act. These procedures replace APHIS Guidelines Concerning

Implementation of NEPA Procedures.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 3, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Robert E. Pizel, Branch Chief, Biotechnology, Biologics, and

Environmental Protection, APHIS, USDA, P.O. Drawer 810, Riverdale, MD

20738. The telephone number for the agency contact will change when

agency offices in Hyattsville, MD, move to Riverdale, MD, during

January 1995. Telephone: (301) 436-8565 (Hyattsville); (301) 734-8565

(Riverdale).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The regulations of the President's Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ) implementing section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy

Act (hereinafter referred to as NEPA) are applicable to and binding on

all agencies of the Federal Government. Pursuant to the CEQ

implementing regulations, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (APHIS) is implementing procedures to ensure that its planning

and decisionmaking are in accordance with the policies and purposes of

NEPA. The CEQ implementing regulations direct that agencies shall

include, at a minimum, procedures required by 40 CFR 1501.2(d),

1502.9(c)(3), 1505.1, 1506.6(e), 1507.3(b)(2), and 1508.4

[[Page 6001]] (1992). APHIS' procedures supplant the APHIS Guidelines

Concerning Implementation of NEPA Procedures originally published in

the Federal Register on August 28, 1979 (44 FR 50381-50384) and

corrections as published in the Federal Register on August 31, 1979 (44

FR 51272-51274).

On June 3, 1994, we published in the Federal Register (59 FR 28814-

28821, Docket No. 93-165-1) proposed procedures implementing CEQ's NEPA

regulations. Comments on the proposed procedures were required to be

received on or before July 18, 1994. During the comment period, we

received a request from the Association of Natural Bio-control

Producers that we extend the comment period. The comment stated that

additional time was necessary to allow interested parties to evaluate

fully and respond to the proposed procedures. In response to this

comment, we published a notice in the Federal Register on July 22, 1994

(59 FR 37442, Docket No. 93-165-2), reopening and extending the comment

period until August 2, 1994.

We received seven comments by August 2, 1994, from the following

commenters: American Veterinary Medical Association; Asgrow Seed

Company; Association of Natural Bio-control Producers; Environmental

Defense Fund; State of California, Department of Food and Agriculture;

The Humane Society of the United States; and the Office of the

Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior. We carefully

considered all of the comments we received. Noteworthy issues that were

raised in comments--whether or not they prompted changes to the

proposed procedures--are developed below either under the appropriate

section headings or, if they do not fit within a section heading, under

the ``miscellaneous'' heading that follows. Sections 372.1 through

372.3 and 372.7 through 372.10 were not addressed in comments and,

except where language was modified to improve clarity or eliminate,

insofar as possible, ``jargon,'' remain as originally proposed.

Discussion of Issues

Definitions (Section 372.4)

One commenter, concerned that some language in the procedures is

too species-specific, has suggested that APHIS broaden significantly

its definition of ``environment.'' The term ``environment'' is not

defined in these procedures. CEQ's regulations provide that the term

```human environment' shall be interpreted comprehensively to include

the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people

with that environment.''\1\ In evaluating impacts of agency proposals

and exploring alternatives under NEPA, we are guided by CEQ's

interpretation of the term ``human environment.'' In certain cases,

limiting language is used in these procedures, not to circumscribe the

scope of required NEPA analysis, but in recognition of program

jurisdictional constraints. In no case is language employed to limit

APHIS' environmental responsibilities.

\1\40 CFR 1508.14.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Classification of Actions (Section 372.5)

One commenter has criticized the failure of this section to

distinguish consistently between specific criteria for and

identification of classes of action. He has also urged that examples

and classes of action be presented with much greater specificity. We

agree and have rewritten this section (the substance of which has not

been changed) in an attempt to accommodate those concerns and for

general clarification.

Categorically Excluded Actions

One commenter has asked who will make the decisions regarding what

is or is not categorically excluded. The decision in the first instance

belongs to program personnel who should be greatly assisted in that

effort through the rewrite of this section.

Another commenter is ``concerned about the possibility that APHIS

may, under the language now proposed, consider the seizure or removal

of wild animals from a population for such purposes as disease testing

as actions which are categorically excluded.'' The fact is that such

seizures or removals, which are generally very limited in scope and

humanely pursued, would seldom have the potential to affect

significantly the quality of the human environment.\2\

\2\If the animals to be tested were listed as endangered or

threatened by the Federal Government or otherwise protected (by

treaty, for example), then categorical exclusion would clearly not

be appropriate. In that case, the environmental assessment or

environmental impact statement process (as well as any other

required consultation or process) would be undertaken.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One commenter has inquired whether small-scale field tests of

genetically engineered plants is included as a categorically excluded

action under paragraph (c)(2), which provides an exclusion for

``[a]ctivities that are carried out in laboratories, facilities, or

other areas designed to eliminate the potential for harmful

environmental effects.'' In fact, the environmental assessment process

has been undertaken for hundreds of permits that have been issued to

conduct small-scale (or ``confined,'' as expressed in current

biotechnology literature) field tests of genetically engineered plants.

In every case a finding of no significant impact was reached, reason

enough to conclude that such tests ought to be categorically excluded.

To eliminate any confusion, this action (including ``notifications,''

which are little more than logical extensions) will be described

separately as an example of categorical exclusions under a retitled

paragraph (c)(3). We emphasize, in response to concerns raised by

another commenter on this subject, that this categorical exclusion

applies only to confined field tests; unconfined testing would not

qualify for categorical exclusion.

Two other commenters maintain that the movement and release of at

least some nonindigenous species also would qualify for categorical

exclusion under the same exclusion theory as small-scale field tests of

genetically engineered plants. We agree that categorical exclusion of

some nonindigenous species activities--movement to and from

``containment,'' as well as the release into a State's environment of

pure cultures of organisms that are either native or are established

introductions--is appropriate. These actions also will be described

separately as examples of categorical exclusions under paragraph

(c)(3).

Finally, the substance of paragraph (c)(3) of the proposed

procedures is provided as an example under paragraph (c)(1) of these

final procedures. The substance of paragraph (c)(5) of the proposed

procedures appears in these final procedures as paragraph (c)(3), which

has been retitled ``Licensing and permitting'' and expanded to include

activities described in the preceding two paragraphs.

Early Planning for Applicants and Non-APHIS Entities (Section 372.6)

One commenter has complained that the failure to develop ``the

necessary environmental data needs'' leaves potential applicants in the

dark. This situation, according to the commenter, could lead to

imposition of inconsistent and burdensome requirements. Data

requirements have indeed been developed for some agency programs.\3\

Other programs are in the process of incorporating such requirements

into their guidance.

\3\See for example, 7 CFR 340.4 (data requirements for

applications seeking authorization to introduce genetically

engineered organisms into the environment). [[Page 6002]]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Miscellaneous

Appeals

One commenter has expressed concern about ``the absence of proposed

procedures to provide the public with an opportunity to appeal APHIS

decisions with which it disagrees.'' The appeal procedures, according

to that commenter, should be made a part of the agency's NEPA

procedures so that the public will not be forced ``to seek judicial

review as the first and only response to inadequate NEPA documents.''

We do not believe that the agency's NEPA procedures should be the

vehicle through which APHIS decisions may be appealed. These procedures

are designed to complement the CEQ regulations and to ensure that the

NEPA process aids this agency's decisionmaking and contributes to

public understanding of APHIS' duties and functions at all levels of

administrative action. It is through NEPA's public process that the

best possible documentation will be prepared; turning that process into

a form of adjudication will do nothing to enhance document quality.

Emergencies

The agency has been urged by one commenter to address

``emergencies'' in its NEPA procedures. It has been recommended that

(1) the term ``emergency'' be defined as ``a situation or occurrence of

an extremely serious nature that has developed suddenly and

unexpectedly and requires immediate action to address a serious threat

to life or property,'' and (2) a provision be added to the procedures

that would require the agency to consult with CEQ in emergency

circumstances ``as soon as possible about alternative arrangements for

compliance with NEPA.''

The CEQ regulations, which deal expressly with ``emergency

circumstances,'' have been (and will continue to be) complied with by

APHIS as necessary. Duplicating the CEQ ``emergency'' regulations here

would serve no useful purpose; indeed, we are discouraged from doing

so.\4\

\4\See 40 CFR 1507.3 (``Such procedures shall not paraphrase

these regulations').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compliance Issues

One commenter has expressed concern that Executive Order 12778

``moves all decision making and document preparation to the highest

possible level--USDA national staff in Hyattsville'' and that the

executive order is at ``odds with CEQA [California Environmental

Quality Act], and leaves [California citizens and officials] open to

limitation under CEQA despite having met NEPA standards.''

The notice of proposed rulemaking merely recited how these

procedures are affected by Executive Order 12778, which we cannot

disavow. But the fact is that APHIS has not centralized environmental

decisionmaking; on the contrary, environmental decisionmaking at this

agency is in the process of being decentralized. Furthermore, it is

doubtful that California's CEQA would be found to be in ``conflict''

with this agency's procedures. Nevertheless, principles of federalism

permit suits to be brought in State court under State law whether or

not there is compliance with a counterpart Federal statute.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule

has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive

Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget.

These procedures satisfy the requirement to implement CEQ's NEPA

regulations and have been designed to reduce to a minimum the

regulatory burden on small entities and all other individuals and

organizations, public and private.

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that these procedures

will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of

small entities.

Executive Order 12372

This program/activity is listed in the catalogy of Federal Domestic

Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive 12372, which

requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.

(See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)

Executive Order 12778

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil

Justice Reform. This rule (1) Preempts all State and local laws and

regulations that are in conflict with these procedures; (2) has no

retroactive effect; and (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not

require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in

court challenging this rule.

The National Environmental Policy Act

Implementation of these procedures willl not significantly impact

the quality of the human environment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

These procedures contain no information collection or recordkeeping

requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.).

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 372

Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental assessment,

Environmental impact statement, and National Environmental Policy Act.

Accordingly, title 7, chapter III, of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended by adding a new part 372 to read as follows:

PART 372--NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES

Sec.

372.1 Purpose.

372.2 Designation of responsible APHIS official.

372.3 Information and assistance.

372.4 Definitions.

372.5 Classification of actions.

372.6 Early planning for applicants and non-APHIS entities.

372.7 Consultation.

372.8 Major planning and decision points and public involvement.

372.9 Processing and use of environmental documents.

372.10 Supplementing environmental impact statements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 40 CFR parts 1500-1508; 7 CFR

parts 1b, 2.17, 2.51, 371.2, 371.2(m), 371.13(d), and 371.14(b).

Sec. 372.1 Purpose.

These procedures implement section 102(2) of the National

Environmental Policy Act by assuring early and adequate consideration

of environmental factors in Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

planning and decisionmaking and by promoting the effective, efficient

integration of all relevant environmental requirements under the

National Environmental Policy Act. The goal of timely, relevant

environmental analysis will be secured principally by adhering to the

National Environmental Policy Act implementing regulations (40 CFR

parts 1500-1508), especially provisions pertaining to timing

(Sec. 1502.5), integration (Sec. 1502.25), and scope of analysis

(Sec. 1508.25).

Sec. 372.2 Designation of responsible APHIS official.

The Administrator of APHIS, or an agency official to whom the

Administrator may formally delegate the task, is responsible for

overall review of APHIS' NEPA compliance. [[Page 6003]]

Sec. 372.3 Information and assistance.

Information, including the status of studies, and the availability

of reference materials, as well as the informal interpretations of

APHIS' NEPA procedures and other forms of assistance, will be made

available upon request to Environmental Analysis and Documentation,

Biotechnology, Biologics, and Environmental Protection, APHIS, USDA,

P.O. Drawer 810, Riverdale MD 20738, (301) 436-8565 (Hyattsville) or

(301) 734-8565 (Riverdale).

Sec. 372.4 Definitions.

The terminology set forth in the Council on Environmental Quality's

(CEQ) implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1508 is incorporated

herein. In addition, the following terms, as used in these procedures,

are defined as follows:

APHIS. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

Decisionmaker. The agency official responsible for executing

findings of no significant impact in the environmental assessment

process and the record of decision in the environmental impact

statement process.

Department. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Environmental unit. Environmental Analysis and Documentation, the

analytical unit in Biotechnology, Biologics, and Environmental

Protection responsible for coordinating APHIS' compliance with the

National Environmental Policy Act and other environmental laws and

regulations.

Sec. 372.5 Classification of actions.

(a) Actions normally requiring environmental impact statements.

This class of policymakings and rulemakings seeks to establish

programmatic approaches to animal and plant health issues. Actions in

this class typically involve the agency, an entire program, or a

substantial program component and are characterized by their broad

scope (often global or nationwide) and potential effect (impacting a

wide range of environmental quality values or indicators, whether or

not affected individuals or systems may be completely identified at the

time). Ordinarily, new or untried methodologies, strategies, or

techniques to deal with pervasive threats to animal and plant health

are the subjects of this class of actions. Alternative means of dealing

with those threats usually have not been well developed. Actions in

this class include:

(1) Formulation of contingent response strategies to combat future

widespread outbreaks of animal and plant diseases; and

(2) Adoption of strategic or other long-range plans that purport to

adopt for future program application a preferred course of action.

(b) Actions normally requiring environmental assessments but not

necessarily environmental impact statements. This class of APHIS

actions may involve the agency as a whole or an entire program, but

generally is related to a more discrete program component and is

characterized by its limited scope (particular sites, species, or

activities) and potential effect (impacting relatively few

environmental values or systems). Individuals and systems that may be

affected can be identified. Methodologies, strategies, and techniques

employed to deal with the issues at hand are seldom new or untested.

Alternative means of dealing with those issues are well established.

Mitigation measures are generally available and have been successfully

employed. Actions in this class include:

(1) Policymakings and rulemakings that seek to remedy specific

animal and plant health risks or that may affect opportunities on the

part of the public to influence agency environmental planning and

decisionmaking. Examples of this category of actions include:

(i) Development of program plans that seek to adopt strategies,

methods, and techniques as the means of dealing with particular animal

and plant health risks that may arise in the future;

(ii) Implementation of program plans at the site-specific, action

level, except for actions that are categorically excluded, as provided

in paragraph (c) of this section.

(2) Planning, design, construction, or acquisition of new

facilities, or proposals for modifications to existing facilities.

(3) Disposition of waste and other hazardous or toxic materials at

laboratories and other APHIS facilities, except for actions that are

categorically excluded, as provided in paragraph (c) of this section.

(4) Approvals and issuance of permits for proposals involving

genetically engineered or nonindigenous species, except for actions

that are categorically excluded, as provided in paragraph (c) of this

section.

(5) Research or testing that:

(i) Will be conducted outside of a laboratory or other containment

area (field trials, for example); or

(ii) Reaches a stage of development (e.g., formulation of

premarketing strategies) that forecasts an irretrievable commitment to

the resulting products or technology.

(c) Categorically excluded actions. This class of APHIS actions

shares many of the same characteristics--particularly in terms of the

extent of program involvement, as well as the scope, effect of, and the

availability of alternatives to proposed actions--as the class of

actions that normally requires environmental assessments but not

necessarily environmental impact statements. The major difference is

that the means through which adverse environmental impacts may be

avoided or minimized have actually been built right into the actions

themselves. The efficacy of this approach generally has been

established through testing and/or monitoring. The Department of

Agriculture has also promulgated a listing of categorical exclusions

that are applicable to all agencies within the department unless their

procedures provide otherwise. Those categorical exclusions, codified at

7 CFR 1b.3(a), are entirely appropriate for APHIS. Other actions in

this class include:

(1) Routine measures. (i) Routine measures, such as

identifications, inspections, surveys, sampling that does not cause

physical alteration of the environment, testing, seizures, quarantines,

removals, sanitizing, inoculations, control, and monitoring employed by

agency programs to pursue their missions and functions. Such measures

may include the use--according to any label instructions or other

lawful requirements and consistent with standard, published program

practices and precautions--of chemicals, pesticides, or other

potentially hazardous or harmful substances, materials, and target-

specific devices or remedies, provided that such use meets all of the

following criteria (insofar as they may pertain to a particular

action):

(A) The use is localized or contained in areas where humans are not

likely to be exposed, and is limited in terms of quantity, i.e.,

individualized dosages and remedies;

(B) The use will not cause contaminants to enter water bodies,

including wetlands;

(C) The use does not adversely affect any federally protected

species or critical habitat; and

(D) The use does not cause bioaccumulation.

(ii) Examples of routine measures include:

(A) Inoculation or treatment of discrete herds of livestock or

wildlife undertaken in contained areas (such as a barn or corral, a

zoo, an exhibition, or an aviary);

(B) Pesticide treatments applied to infested plants at a nursery;

and

(C) Isolated (for example, along a highway) weed control

efforts. [[Page 6004]]

(2) Research and development activities. (i) Activities that are

carried out in laboratories, facilities, or other areas designed to

eliminate the potential for harmful environmental effects--internal or

external--and to provide for lawful waste disposal.

(ii) Examples of this category of actions include:

(A) The development and/or production (including formulation,

repackaging, movement, and distribution) of previously approved and/or

licensed program materials, devices, reagents, and biologics;

(B) Research, testing, and development of animal repellents; and

(C) Development and production of sterile insects.

(3) Licensing and permitting. (i) Issuance of a license, permit, or

authorization to ship for field testing previously unlicensed

veterinary biological products;

(ii) Permitting, or acknowledgment of notifications for, confined

field releases of genetically engineered organisms and products; and

(iii) Permitting of:

(A) Importation of nonindigenous species into containment

facilities,

(B) Interstate movement of nonindigenous species between

containment facilities, or

(C) Releases into a State's environment of pure cultures of

organisms that are either native or are established introductions.

(4) Rehabilitation of facilities. Rehabilitation of existing

laboratories and other APHIS facilities, functional replacement of

parts and equipment, and minor additions to such existing APHIS

facilities.

(d) Exceptions for categorically excluded actions. Whenever the

decisionmaker determines that a categorically excluded action may have

the potential to affect ``significantly'' the quality of the ``human

environment,'' as those terms are defined at 40 CFR 1508.27 and

1508.14, respectively, and environmental assessment or an environmental

impact statement will be prepared. For example:

(1) When any routine measure, the incremental impact of which, when

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions

(regardless of what agency or person undertakes such actions), has the

potential for significant environmental impact;

(2) When a previously licensed or approved biologic has been

subsequently shown to be unsafe, or will be used at substantially

higher dosage levels or for substantially different applications or

circumstances than in the use for which the product was previously

approved;

(3) When a previously unlicensed veterinary biological product to

be shipped for field testing contains live microorganisms or will not

be used exclusively for in vitro diagnostic testing; or

(4) When a confined field release of genetically engineered

organisms or products involves new species or organisms or novel

modifications that raise new issues.

Sec. 372.6 Early planning for applicants and non-APHIS entities.

Each prospective applicant who anticipates the need for approval of

proposed activities classified as normally requiring environmental

documentation is encouraged to contact, at the earliest opportunities,

APHIS' program staff.

Sec. 372.7 Consultation.

Prospective applicants are encouraged to contact APHIS programs

officials to determine what types of environmental analyses or

documentation, if any, need to be prepared. NEPA documents will

incorporate, to the fullest extent possible, surveys and studies

required by other environmental statutes, such as the Endangered

Species Act.

Sec. 372.8 Major planning and decision points and public involvement.

(a) Major planning and decisions points. The NEPA process will be

fully coordinated with APHIS planning in cooperation with program

personnel. Specific decision points or milestones will be identified

and communicated to the public and others in a notice of intent and in

the context of the public scoping process.

(b) Public involvement. There will be an early and open process for

determining the scope of issues to be addressed in the environmental

impact statement process.

(1) A notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement

will be published in the Federal Register as soon as it is determined

that a proposed major Federal action has the potential to affect

significantly the quality of the human environment. The notice may

include a preliminary scope of environmental study. All public and

other involvement in APHIS' environmental impact statement process,

including the scoping process, commenting on draft documents, and

participation in the preparation of any supplemental documents, will be

pursuant to CEQ's implementing regulations.

(2) Opportunities for public involvement in the environmental

assessment process will be announced in the same fashion as the

availability of environmental assessments and findings of no

significant impact.

(3) Notification of the availability of environmental assessments

and findings of no significant impact for proposed activities will be

published in the Federal Register, unless it is determined that the

effects of the action are primarily of regional or local concern. Where

the effects of the action are primarily of regional or local concern,

notice will normally be provided through publication in a local or area

newspaper of general circulation and/or the procedures implementing

Executive Order 12372, ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal

Programs.''

(4) All environmental documents, comments received, and any

underlying documents, including interagency correspondence where such

correspondence transmits comments of Federal agencies on the

environmental impact of proposals for which documents were prepared

(except for privileged or confidential information (50 FR 38561)), will

be made available to the public upon request. Materials to be made

available will be provided without charge, to the extent practicable,

or at a fee not more than the actual cost of reproducing copies

required to be sent to other Federal agencies, including CEQ.

Sec. 372.9 Processing and use of environmental documents.

(a) Environmental assessments will be forwarded immediately upon

completion to the decisionmaker for a determination of whether the

proposed action may have significant effects on the quality of the

human environment, and for the execution, as appropriate, of a finding

of no significant impact or a notice of intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement.

(1) The availability of environmental assessments will be announced

by publishing a notice consistent with the notification provisions of

Sec. 372.8.

(2) Comments, if any, will be transmitted, together with any

analyses and recommendations, to the APHIS decisionmaker who may then

take appropriate action.

(3) Changes to environmental assessments and findings of no

significant impact that are prompted by comments, new information, or

any other source, will normally be announced in the same manner as the

notice of availability (except that all commenters will be mailed

copies of changes directly) prior to implementing the proposed action

or any alternative. [[Page 6005]]

(b) Environmental impact statements will be processed from

inception (publication of the notice of intent) to completion

(publication of a final environmental impact statement or a supplement)

according to the Council on Environmental Quality implementing

regulations.

(c) For rulemaking or adjudicatory proceedings, relevant

environmental documents, comments, and responses will be a part of the

administrative record.

(d) For all APHIS activity that is subject to the NEPA process,

relevant environmental documents, comments, and responses will

accompany proposals through the review process.

(e) The APHIS decisionmaker will consider the alternatives

discussed in environmental documents in reaching a determination on the

merits of proposed actions.

(f) APHIS will implement mitigation and other conditions

established in environmental documentation and committed to as part of

the decisionmaking process.

Sec. 372.10 Supplementing environmental impact statements.

Once a decision to supplement an environmental impact statement is

made, a notice of intent will be published. The administrative record

will thereafter be open. The supplemental document will then be

processed in the same fashion (exclusive of scoping) as a draft and a

final statement (unless alternative procedures are approved by CEQ) and

will become part of the administrative record.

Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of January 1995.

Terry L. Medley,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 95-2450 Filed 1-31-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-34-M