Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP)

Federal RegisterJan 24, 1995

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force

32 CFR Part 989

RIN 0701-AA36

Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP)

AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, DoD.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Air Force revised its regulations to

update the Air Force process for compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act and Executive Order 12114, Environmental

Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions. This revision provides policy

and guidance for consideration of environmental matters in the Air

Force decision-making process. It implements the Council on

Environmental Quality regulations and 32 CFR Part 188 as well as

Executive Order 12114.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 24, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Kenneth L. Reinertson or Mr. Jack

C. Bush, (HQ USAF/CEVP), 1260 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-

1260, telephone, (703) 695-8942.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion of Major Issues

Unless otherwise noted, the discussions in the following paragraphs

only address issues where public comments were received and

clarification is required. For portions of the final rule where

comments were not received, the final rule is consistent with the

proposed rule, and no further discussions are included. Portions of the

proposed rule have also been changed so the final rule more clearly

states the intended meaning. Some of these changes are based on public

input, but are not addressed in a specific discussion.

Readers should note that as part of a reduction of bulk and

clarification of this rule, specific reformatting has been

accomplished. Section 989.9, formerly titled, Lead and cooperating

agency, is now titled, Cooperation and adoption.

Section 989.32, Definitions, has now changed to, Attachment 1--

Glossary of References, Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Terms. Section

989.32 is now titled, Procedures for analysis abroad, and Sec. 989.33,

Categorical exclusions, is now, Attachment 2--Categorical Exclusions.

Environmental considerations-- global commons, Sec. 989.34 and,

Environmental considerations--foreign nations and protected global

resources, Sec. 989.35, have been reorganized as Sec. 989.32,

Procedures for analysis abroad, [[Page 4546]] and Sec. 989.33,

Requirements for analysis abroad. This reorganization of the rule was

accomplished to show that Air Force environmental planning abroad is

part of the EIAP, but is not considered a part of the Air Force's NEPA

compliance. Air Force analysis abroad is strictly driven by 32 CFR Part

187, Environmental effects abroad of major DOD actions. Title 32 CFR

Part 187 implements Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad

of Major Federal Actions.

The former Sec. 989.36, Procedures for holding public hearings, has

been reformatted as Attachment 3--Procedures for Holding Public

Hearings on Draft Environmental Impact Statements.

1. Combining Documents

Comments: Commenters indicated that comprehensive planning is based

upon a solid information base, quite similar to the information base

required for the EIAP. Commenters further indicated that comprehensive

plans should support good economic, environmental and social management

goals, and the Air Force EIAP should be applied to comprehensive

planning.

Response: Sections 1500.4(o), 1500.5(i) and 1506.4 of the CEQ

regulations address combining environmental documents to reduce

duplication and paperwork. This combination could include any other

type of document so long as the actual NEPA document is in compliance

with that law and the CEQ regulations. Air Force comprehensive planning

includes as a fundamental planning component, environmental constraints

and opportunities. It also incorporates operational, urban planning,

and capital improvement programs, to identify and assess development

alternatives and ensure compliance with applicable federal, state, and

local laws, regulations and policies. No further changes will be made

to this regulation with reference to wording addressing combining

documents.

2. Environmental Assessments (EA)

Comment: Several commenters disagreed with Air Force's ``non-

involvement'' of the public or oversight agencies in preparation of

draft EAs. Further, commenters suggested that draft EAs be made

available to the public for review and comment in the same manner as

draft EISs. Commenters major concerns revolved around the potential for

the Air Force to ``hide'' potential impacts and to take actions that

would otherwise require an EIS and therefore require public hearings.

Response: CEQ has indicated their intent as to when public review

of EAs is necessary. For example: borderline cases (reasonable argument

for preparation of an EIS); unusual, new, or precedent setting cases;

public controversy; or when the action is one which would normally

require an EIS. CEQ has also indicated that where the proposal itself

integrates mitigation from the beginning and it is impossible to define

the proposal without including the mitigation, the agency may then rely

on mitigation measures in determining if overall effects would not be

significant. In those instances, agencies should make the FONSI and EA

available for 30 days of public comment before taking action.

The Air Force has identified specific actions where a 30 day public

review is required. Section 989.14 of this rule has been modified to

identify procedures for public involvement in the development of an EA.

The Air Force has included the public in the review of appropriate EAs,

where the public input would assist in better decision-making.

The Air Force has specifically modified Sec. 989.14(g) by adding a

subparagraph (5) which will require all EAs that mitigate impacts to

insignificance in lieu of an EIS, to be the subject of a public review

period. Section 989.14(j) has been revised to define how to initiate a

public review period for specified actions. The extent of public

involvement will typically coincide with the magnitude and complexity

of the proposed action and its potential effect on the area in

question.

3. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

Comment: Commenters suggested that the final rule should provide

provisions for public dissemination and comment on all FONSIs.

Commenters also suggested that a public review period should be

provided for all NEPA documentation.

Response: The Air Force considers all NEPA compliance documents

public documents, unless classified for operational reasons. These

documents are available to the public, upon request or as part of

previously established mailing list. They are also available through

regional offices of federal agencies having responsibility for a

certain area of environmental protection, the state single point of

contact and state agencies. The amount of time provided for review of

an EA/FONSI is directly related to the magnitude of the action and

potential environmental controversy. Section 989.15(e)(l) has been

edited to clarify intent and to ensure that all Air Force organizations

understand that a public review is the norm unless clearly unnecessary.

Section 989.15(f) has been modified by adding subparagraph (4) in

cases where potential significant environmental impacts found during

preparation of an EA/FONSI are mitigated to insignificance in lieu of

preparing an EIS, as defined in Sec. 989.22(c).

4. Public Involvement in the Environmental Impact Analysis Process

(EIAP) (Air Force NEPA Compliance Process) Notice of Intent (NOI):

Scoping and Review and Comments of Documentation

Comment: Commenters were concerned that the Air Force would attempt

to keep the public involvement in a proposal to a minimum by not

releasing information or ignoring public concerns. Commenters suggested

that the Air Force would attempt to hide potential significant impacts

related to a proposal. Further, commenters indicated that when a

federal agency holds a public scoping meeting in a given community they

must return to that same community to hold hearings on the DEIS.

Response: The Air Force includes the affected public in all its

NEPA compliance actions (see 2 and 3 above) for the initiation of a

proposal through the final decision (initial scoping process, the

public review and comment process and responding to concerns raised by

individuals, organizations and other federal agencies).

Section 1506.6. of the CEQ regulations requires agencies to make

``diligent efforts'' to involve the public in the agency's NEPA

procedures. The Air Force includes the public as fully as is

practicable in the NEPA decision-making process. Section 989.23, Public

notification mandates not only legally required public involvement, but

also encourages equally effective means for including public

participation in the Air Force's NEPA process.

When the Air Force is preparing an EIS for an action that could

potentially impact on a specific community, it is the Air Force's

intent to fully incorporate the community in the process of scoping and

public hearings. In the case where the action was carried no further

than the scoping stage, because it may have been discontinued, the Air

Force would not hold a public hearing. For continuing actions the Air

Force will return to the scoping venue to hold public hearings on the

DEIS, unless the scoping process has indicated a lack of interest. On

the other hand, if [[Page 4547]] decision-making for a proposal was the

subject of an EA, a determination as to whether or not a scoping

meeting or public hearing will be held would be made based upon

criteria provided in Sec. 989.14(j). The Air Force has identified

specific procedures for holding public hearings on draft EISs (see

Attachment 3).

5. Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)

Comments: Commenters indicated that wording be revised to make

clear what is being stated regarding distribution of summary

documentation when the DEIS is unusually long. Commenters suggested

that wording, to address unusually long DEISs, should be circulated

which would include a list of locations (such as public libraries)

where the entire DEIS may be reviewed. If the agency receives a timely

request for the entire statement and for additional time to comment,

the time for that requester only shall be extended by at least 15 days

beyond the minimum review period.

Commenters suggested that when responding to comments the agency

should, in the comment section of the document, refer the reader to the

appropriate modified text. This would allow the reviewer to quickly

find the appropriate response.

Response: Section 989.19(d) has been edited to clarify procedures

for handling summary documents and making lengthy DEISs available for

public review at specific locations. Section 989.19(e) has been added

to provide guidance as to when and how to seek additional comments from

the interested public. Guidance in sub-section (e) will be followed

when there has been a significant change in circumstances, development

of new information or where there is substantial controversy concerning

a proposal.

Section 989.21(a) has been revised to reflect the correct

procedural requirements for EPA filing of notices of availability.

Section 989.28 has been revised to better discuss issues relative to

air quality in NEPA documentation.

6. Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)

Comments: Commenters suggested that the distribution process for

the FEIS should be clarified to clearly indicate that FEISs must be

furnished to any person, organization, or agencies that made comments

on the DEIS. Commenters also indicated that a new section should be

added which would give guidance as to when reevaluation of a completed

NEPA analysis should occur.

Response: Section 989.20(a) has been modified to reflect concerns

related to distribution of the FEIS. Also, a new subsection

Sec. 989.20(c) has been added. This section describes when, due to the

lack of advancement of a proposal, reevaluation of the NEPA

documentation should be accomplished to ensure its validity.

7. Mitigation

Comments: Commenters indicated that the regulation should mandate

the inclusion of the cost of mitigation as a line item in the budget

for a proposed action versus the currently existing ``where possible''

language. Commenters also indicated that the Air Force may burden

proponents of actions by requiring them to prepare mitigation plans as

described in Sec. 989.22(d).

Response: The Air Force uses mitigations to reduce or eliminate

potential impacts. Commitment to the use of mitigations, as defined

both in the text of a NEPA analysis and the FONSI or ROD, are

considered by the Air Force to be legally required and will be

fulfilled. Mitigations are placed into a computer tracking system at HQ

Air Force, with periodic status updates/validations being accomplished.

Section 989.15(e)(2)(iv) has been added to require a 30-day review

period for EA/FONSIs where potential impacts will be mitigated to

insignificance. Also Sec. 989.22(d) has been modified to better reflect

Air Force intent relative to execution of mitigations.

8. Classified Actions

Comments: Commenters indicated that classifying NEPA compliance

documentation should not be allowed. Commenters perceived that the Air

Force would classify programs that released chemical toxins or

radioactive materials into the environment, without informing the

public because of the classified nature of the program producing the

pollutants. Commenters further indicated that the Air Force would

classify a program just to hide its environmental impacts or to avert

Congressional scrutiny.

Response: As stated earlier, it is the Air Force's intent to

include the public in all of its NEPA compliance actions. Classifying

of an action will not be accomplished to ``hide'' potential

environmental controversy. However, environmental documentation will be

classified to safeguard issues of national security. Although an action

may be classified, the Air Force intends to comply with NEPA, for

classified actions, as described in Sec. 989.25, and will make

available, unclassified portions of environmental documents for public

review.

9. Airspace

Comments: Commenters referred to an inter-agency agreement between

the National Park Service (NPS), the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), where the FAA, recognizing the values for which

the NPS, FWS, and BLM lands are managed, has established a 2,000' Above

Ground Level (AGL) advisory as the requested minimum altitude for

aircraft flying over lands administered by these agencies. These

agencies seek voluntary cooperation with the 2,000' AGL minimum

altitude advisory. Commenters expressed a concern regarding airspace

reviews being considered in relation to potential impacts of over

flights of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Commenters also

indicated the Air Force should fully integrate land management agencies

in development of NEPA documents.

Response: The Air Force has entered into a Memorandum of

Understanding that outlines various airspace responsibilities, (see

Sec. 989.27, ``Airspace proposals.'' Further, the Air Force has

identified 3000' AGL as the base altitude to apply a CATEX (see

Attachment 2 A.2.3.35). Any airspace proposal below 3000' AGL will

trigger the requirement to prepare a more in-depth level of NEPA

analysis. The Air Force includes all land management agencies in NEPA

compliance. Where necessary, the Air Force invites these agencies to

act as ``Cooperating Agency'' for that agency's decision making

purposes. For NEPA compliance documents related to airspace issues, a

full analysis will be accomplished with input from the public and

responsible agencies. The Air Force has added Sec. 989.15(e)(1)(v) to

require a 30-day review period for EAs analyzing proposed changes in

airspace use or designation.

10. Categorical Exclusion (CATEX)

Comments: Commenters indicated that the list of actual CATEXes

should be placed under Sec. 989.13 so all requirements are found under

one heading. Commenters also indicated that some of the Air Force

CATEXes are too broad in scope.

Response: Due to the length of the CATEX list, it will remain as a

separate section (now, Attachment 2--Categorical Exclusions). Although

the initial perception may be that a CATEX is too broad, the Air Force

believes that proper procedural application of the EIAP will provide

for adequate scoping [[Page 4548]] of issues. The Air Force

accomplishes this initial scoping via the Air Force Form 813, Request

for Environmental Impact Analysis, as described in Sec. 989.12. When

this Form is applied as intended and filled out accurately, the

determination of scope and whether or not a CATEX will apply, will be

better determined.

The Department of the Air Force has determined that this rule is

not a major rule because it will not have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more. The Secretary of the Air Force has

certified that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, because this rule does

not have a significant economic impact on small entities as defined by

the Act, and does not impose any obligatory information requirements

beyond internal Air Force use. This rule revises and replaces Air Force

Regulation (AFR) 19-2, Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP), 10

August 1982, and AFR 19-3, Environmental Impact Analysis Process

Overseas, 23 September 1981.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 989

Environmental protection, Environmental impact statements.

Therefore 32 CFR Part 989 is revised to read as follows:

PART 989-ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PROCESS (EIAP)

Sec.

989.1 Purpose.

989.2 Concept.

989.3 Responsibilities.

989.4 Initial considerations.

989.5 Organizational relationships.

989.6 Budgeting and funding.

989.7 Requests from non-Air Force agencies or entities.

989.8 Analysis of alternatives.

989.9 Cooperation and adoption.

989.10 Tiering.

989.11 Combining EIAP with other documentation.

989.12 Air Force Form 813, Request for Environmental Impact

Analysis.

989.13 Categorical exclusion.

989.14 Environmental assessment.

989.15 Finding of no significant impact.

989.16 Environmental impact statement.

989.17 Notice of intent.

989.18 Scoping.

989.19 Draft EIS.

989.20 Final EIS.

989.21 Record of decision.

989.22 Mitigation.

989.23 Public notification.

989.24 Base closure and realignment.

989.25 Classified actions (40 CFR 1507.3(e)).

989.26 Occupational safety and health.

989.27 Airspace proposals.

989.28 Air quality.

989.29 Pollution prevention.

989.30 Special and emergency procedures.

989.31 Reporting requirements.

989.32 Procedures for analysis abroad.

989.33 Requirements for analysis abroad.

Attachment 1 to Part 989--Glossary of References, Abbreviations,

Acronyms, and Terms.

Attachment 2 to Part 989--Categorical Exclusions.

Attachment 3 to Part 989--Procedures for Holding Public Hearings on

Draft Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)

Authority: 10 U.S.C. 8013.

Sec. 989.1 Purpose.

(a) This part implements the Air Force Environmental Impact

Analysis Process and provides procedures for environmental impact

analysis both within the United States and abroad. Because the

authority for, and rules governing, each aspect of the Environmental

Impact Analysis Process differ depending on whether the action takes

place in the United States or outside the United States, this part

provides largely separate procedures for each type of action.

Consequently, the main body of this part deals primarily with

environmental impact analysis under the authority of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (Public Law 91-190, 42 U.S.C.

4321-4347), while the primary procedures for environmental impact

analysis of actions outside the United States in accordance with

Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal

Actions, are contained in Secs. 989.32 and 989.33.

(b) The procedures in this part are essential to achieve and

maintain compliance with NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the

NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, referred to as the ``CEQ Regulations'').

Further requirements are contained in 32 CFR Part 188 (Department of

Defense Directive (DoDD) 6050.1, Environmental Effects in the United

States of DoD Actions, July 30, 1979), and DoD Instruction 5000.2,

Defense Acquisition Management Policies and Procedures, February 23,

1991, with Change 11 and Air Force Supplement 1, Acquisition

Management Policies, 31 August 1993, with Change 1. To comply with NEPA

and complete the EIAP, the CEQ Regulations and this part must be used

together.

\1\Copies of the publications are available, at cost, from the

National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce,

5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

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

Executive Order 12114, and 32 CFR Part 187 (DoDD 6050.7, Environmental

Effects Abroad of Major Department of Defense Actions, March 31, 1979).

To comply with Executive Order 12114 and complete the EIAP, the

Executive Order, 32 CFR Part 187, and this part must be used together.

(d) Attachment 1 of this part is a glossary of references,

abbreviations, acronyms, and terms. Refer to 40 CFR Part 1508 for other

terminology used in this part.

Sec. 989.2 Concept.

(a) This part provides a framework on how to comply with NEPA and

Executive Order 12114 according to Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD)

32-702.

\2\See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.

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

(b) Major commands (MAJCOM) provide additional implementing

guidance in their supplemental publications to this part. MAJCOM

supplements must identify the specific offices that have implementation

responsibility and include any guidance needed to comply with this

part. All references to MAJCOMs in this part include the Air National

Guard Readiness Center (ANGRC) and other agencies designated as

``MAJCOM equivalent'' by HQ USAF.

Sec. 989.3 Responsibilities.

(a) Office of the Secretary of the Air Force. (1) The Assistant

Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower, Reserve Affairs,

Installations, and Environment (SAF/MI):

(i) Promulgates and oversees policy to ensure integration of

environmental considerations.

(ii) Determines the level of environmental analysis required for

especially important, visible, or controversial Air Force proposals and

approves selected Environmental Assessments (EA) and Findings of No

Significant Impact (FONSI).

(iii) Is the liaison on environmental matters with Federal agencies

and national-level public interest organizations.

(iv) Is the approval authority for all Environmental Impact

Statements (EIS) prepared for Air Force actions, whether classified or

unclassified.

(2) The General Counsel (SAF/GC). Provides final legal advice to

SAF/MI, HQ USAF, and HQ USAF Environmental Protection Committee (EPC)

on EIAP questions.

(3) Office of Legislative Liaison (SAF/LL):

(i) Distributes draft and final EISs to congressional delegations.

(ii) Reviews and provides the Office of the Secretary of Defense

(OSD) with [[Page 4549]] analyses of the Air Force position on proposed

and enrolled legislation and executive department testimony dealing

with EIAP issues.

(4) Office of Public Affairs (SAF/PA):

(i) Reviews environmental documents requiring Office of the

Secretary of the Air Force approval prior to public release.

(ii) Assists the environmental planning function and the Air Force

Legal Services Agency, Trial Judiciary Division (AFLSA/JAJT), in

planning and conducting public scoping meetings and hearings.

(iii) Ensures that public affairs aspects of all EIAP actions are

conducted in accordance with this part and Air Force Instruction (AFI)

35-202, Environmental Community Involvement3.

\3\See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.

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

(iv) The National Guard Bureau, Office of Public Affairs (NGB-PA),

will assume the responsibilities of SAF/PA for the EIAP involving the

National Guard Bureau, Air Directorate.

(b) Headquarters US Air Force (HQ USAF). The Civil Engineer (HQ

USAF/CE) formulates and oversees execution of EIAP policy. The National

Guard Bureau Air Directorate (NGB-CF) oversees the EIAP for Air

National Guard actions.

Agencies (FOA). These organizations establish procedures that comply

with this part wherever they are the host unit for preparing and using

required environmental documentation in making decisions about proposed

actions and programs within their commands.

(1) Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE). The

AFCEE Environmental Conservation and Planning Directorate (AFCEE/EC)

provides technical assistance to major commands and the Air Force Base

Conversion Agency.

(2) Air Force Regional Compliance Offices (RCO). RCOs review other

agency environmental documents that may have an impact on the Air

Force. Requests for review of such documents should be directed to the

proper RCO (Atlanta, Dallas, or San Francisco) along with any relevant

comments. The RCO:

(i) Notifies the proponent, after receipt, that the RCO is the

single point of contact for the Air Force review of the document.

(ii) Requests comments from potentially affected installations,

MAJCOMs, the ANG, and HQ USAF, as required.

(iii) Consolidates comments into the Air Force official response

and submits the final response to the proponent.

(iv) Provides to HQ USAF, the appropriate MAJCOMs and installations

a copy of the final response and a complete set of all review comments.

(3) Headquarters Air Force Materiel Command (HQ AFMC). HQ AFMC is

responsible for applying EIAP to all proposed Air Force weapons systems

and modifications to existing systems. These documents may be used as a

basis for tiering documents in subsequent system beddown environmental

analyses (see Sec. 989.10). HQ AFMC ensures that:

(i) Environmental documents for acquisition of systems required for

Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) decisions are completed prior to DAB

milestone decisions.

(ii) Detailed guidance on the EIAP for acquisition programs,

contained in DoD Instruction 5000.2 with Change 1, (part 6, Section I)

and Air Force Supplement 7 with Change 1; DoD Manual 5000.2-M, Defense

Acquisition Management Documentation and Reports, February 1991, with

Change 1 (part 4, section F, Integrated Program Summary) and Air Force

Supplement 1 with Change 1,4 is complied with or is followed.

Analysis requirements in this instruction apply where the Air Force is

the sole acquisition agent or the lead service for joint programs.

\4\See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.

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

(iii) EIAP studies involving real property, facilities, personnel,

and training to support acquisition programs are coordinated through

the HQ AFMC environmental planning function.

(d) Environmental Planning Function (EPF). The EPF is the

interdisciplinary staff, at any level of command, responsible for the

EIAP. The EPF:

(1) Assists the proponent in preparing a Description of Proposed

Action and Alternatives (DOPAA) and actively supports the proponent

during all phases of the EIAP.

(2) Evaluates proposed actions and completes Sections II and III of

AF Form 813, Request for Environmental Impact Analysis, subsequent to

submission by the proponent and determines whether a Categorical

Exclusion (CATEX) applies. The EPF responsible official signs the AF

Form 813 certification.

(3) Identifies and documents, with technical advice from the

bioenvironmental engineer and other staff members, environmental

quality standards that relate to the action under evaluation.

(4) Prepares environmental documents, or obtains technical

assistance through Air Force channels or contract support and adopts

the documents as official Air Force papers when completed and approved.

(5) Ensures the EIAP is conducted on base- and MAJCOM-level plans,

including contingency plans for the training, movement, and operations

of Air Force personnel and equipment.

(6) Prepares the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS with

assistance from the proponent and the Public Affairs Office.

(7) Prepares applicable portions of the Certificate of Compliance

for each military construction project according to AFI 32-1021,

Planning and Programming of Facility Construction Projects.5

\5\See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.

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

(e) Proponent. Each office, unit, or activity at any level that

initiates Air Force actions is responsible for:

(1) Notifying the EPF of a pending action and completing Section I

of the AF Form 813, including a DOPAA, for submittal to the EPF.

(2) Identifying key decision points and coordinating with the EPF

on EIAP phasing to ensure that environmental documents are available to

the decision-maker before the final decision is made and ensuring that,

until the EIAP is complete, resources are not committed prejudicing the

selection of alternatives nor actions taken having an adverse

environmental impact or limiting the choice of reasonable alternatives.

(3) Integrating the EIAP into the planning stages of a proposed

program or action and, with the EPF, determining as early as possible

whether to prepare an EIS.

(4) Presenting the DOPAA to the EPC for review and comment.

(5) Coordinating with the EPF prior to organizing public or

interagency meetings which deal with EIAP elements of a proposed action

and involving persons or agencies outside the Air Force.

(6) Subsequent to the decision to prepare an EIS, assisting the EPF

and Public Affairs Office in preparing a draft NOI to prepare an EIS.

All NOIs must be forwarded to HQ USAF/CEV for review and publication in

the Federal Register.

(f) Environmental Protection Committee (EPC). The EPC helps

commanders assess, review and approve EIAP documents.

(g) Staff Judge Advocate (SJA). The Staff Judge Advocate:

(1) Advises the command-level proponent EPF and EPC on CATEX

determinations and the legal sufficiency of environmental documents.

[[Page 4550]]

(2) Advises the EPF during the scoping process of issues that

should be addressed in EISs and on procedures for the conduct of public

hearings.

(3) Coordinates the appointment of the independent hearing officer

with AFLSA/JAJT (or NGB-JA) and provides support for the hearing

officer in cases of public hearings on the draft EIS. The proponent

pays administrative and TDY costs. The hearing officer presides at

hearings and makes final decisions regarding hearing procedures, with

concurrence from HQ USAF/CEV (or ANGRC/CEV).

(4) Promptly refers all matters causing or likely to cause

substantial public controversy or litigation through channels to AFLSA/

JACE (or NGB-JA).

(h) Public Affairs Officer. This officer:

(1) Advises the EPF, the EPC, and the proponent on public affairs

implications of proposed actions and reviews environmental documents

for public affairs issues.

(2) Advises the EPF during the scoping process of issues that

should be addressed in the EIS.

(3) Prepares, coordinates, and distributes news releases related to

the proposal and associated EIAP documents.

(4) Notifies the media (television, radio, newspaper) and purchases

advertisements when newspapers will not run notices free of charge.

(5) For more comprehensive instructions about public affairs

activities in environmental matters, see AFI 35-202.6

\6\See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.

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

(i) Medical Service. The Medical Service, represented by the

bioenvironmental engineer, provides technical assistance to EPFs in the

areas of environmental health standards, environmental effects, and

environmental monitoring capabilities. The Air Force Armstrong

Laboratory, Occupational and Environmental Health Directorate, provides

additional technical support.

(j) Safety Office. The Safety Office provides technical assistance

to EPFs to ensure consideration of safety standards and requirements.

Sec. 989.4 Initial considerations.

Air Force personnel will:

(a) Consider and document environmental effects of proposed Air

Force actions through AF Forms 813, EAs, FONSIs, EISs, EIS Records of

Decision (ROD), and documents prepared according to Executive Order

(E.O.) 12114.

(b) Evaluate proposed actions for possible categorical exclusion

(CATEX) from environmental impact analysis (attachment 2 of this part).

CATEXs may apply to actions in the United States, its territories and

possessions, and abroad.

including those of other Federal, state, and local agencies and the

public, part of the record available for review and use at all levels

of decision making.

(d) Review the specific alternatives analyzed in the EIAP when

evaluating the proposal prior to decision making.

(e) Ensure that alternatives considered by the decision-maker are

both reasonable and within the range of alternatives analyzed in the

environmental documents.

(f) Pursue the objective of furthering foreign policy and national

security interests while at the same time considering important

environmental factors.

(g) Consider the environmental effects of actions that affect the

global commons.

(h) Carry out actions that affect the environment of a foreign

nation in a way that allows consideration of the environment, existing

international agreements, and the sovereignty of other nations.

(i) Determine whether any foreign government should be informed of

the availability of environmental documents. Formal arrangements with

foreign governments concerning environmental matters and communications

with foreign governments concerning environmental agreements will be

coordinated with the Department of State by the Deputy Assistant

Secretary of the Air Force for Environment, Safety, and Occupational

Health (SAF/MIQ) through the Assistant Secretary of Defense. This

coordination requirement does not apply to informal working-level

communications and arrangements.

Sec. 989.5 Organizational relationships.

The host EPF manages the EIAP using an interdisciplinary team

approach. This is especially important for tenant-proposed actions,

because the host command is responsible for the EIAP for actions

related to the host command's installations.

(a) The host command prepares environmental documents internally or

directs the host base to prepare the environmental documents.

Environmental document preparation may be by contract (requiring the

tenant to fund the EIAP), or by the tenant unit. Regardless of the

preparation method, the host command will ensure the required

environmental analysis is accomplished before a decision is made on the

proposal and an action is undertaken. Host/tenant agreements should

provide specific procedures to ensure host oversight of tenant

compliance.

(b) For aircraft beddown and unit realignment actions, program

elements are identified in the Program Objective Memorandum. Subsequent

Program Change Requests must include AF Form 813. When a program for a

given year has sufficient support, HQ USAF/XOO notifies the host

command or NGB-XO to initiate the EIAP. For classified actions, MAJCOMs

and ANG begin reporting monthly EIAP status to HQ USAF/XO (copy to SAF/

MIQ and HQ USAF/CEV) while the proposal is still classified, and upon

declassification, to HQ USAF/CEV. MAJCOMs and ANG continue reporting

until the EIAP is complete for all projects.

information copies of all Mission Need Statements and System

Operational Requirements Documents to SAF/MIQ, HQ USAF/CEV (or ANGRC/

CEV), the Air Force Medical Operations Agency, Aerospace Medicine

Office (AFMOA/SG), and the affected MAJCOM EPFs.

(d) The MAJCOM of the scheduling unit managing affected airspace is

responsible for preparing and approving environmental analyses. The

scheduling unit's higher headquarters may choose whether to prepare the

environmental document, but is ultimately responsible for EIAP document

accomplishment and approval.

Sec. 989.6 Budgeting and funding.

Contract EIAP efforts are proponent MAJCOM responsibilities. Each

year, the EPF budgets for the anticipated EIAP workload based on

reports of command proponents. If proponent offices exceed the budget

in a given year or identify unforeseen requirements, the proponent

offices must provide the remaining funding. For HQ AFMC, the system

program office or project office budgets and funds EIAP efforts

relating to research, development, testing, and evaluation activities.

Sec. 989.7 Requests from non-Air Force agencies or entities.

Non-Air Force agencies or entities may request the Air Force to

undertake an action, such as issuing a permit or outleasing Air Force

property, that may primarily benefit the requester or an agency other

than the Air Force. The EPF and other Air Force staff elements must

identify such requests and coordinate with the proponent of the non-Air

Force proposal, as well as with [[Page 4551]] concerned state, local,

and tribal authorities.

(a) Air Force decisions on such proposals must take into

consideration the potential environmental impacts of the applicant's

proposed activity (as described in an Air Force environmental

document), insofar as the proposed action involves Air Force property

or programs, or requires Air Force approval.

(b) The Air Force may require the requester to prepare, at the

requester's expense, an analysis of environmental impacts (40 CFR

1506.5), or the requester may be required to pay for an EA or EIS to be

prepared by a contractor selected and supervised by the Air Force. The

EPF may permit requesters to submit draft EAs for their proposed

actions, except for actions described in Sec. 989.16 (a) and (b), or

for actions the EPF has reason to believe will ultimately require an

EIS. For EISs, the EPF has the responsibility to prepare the

environmental document, although responsibility for funding remains

with the requester. The fact that the requester has prepared

environmental documents at its own expense does not commit the Air

Force to allow or undertake the proposed action or its alternatives.

The requester is not entitled to any preference over other potential

parties with whom the Air Force might contract or make similar

arrangements.

environmental analysis entitled to reimbursement from the Air Force.

When requesters prepare environmental documents outside the Air Force,

the Air Force must independently evaluate and approve the scope and

content of the environmental analyses before using the analyses to

fulfill EIAP requirements. Any outside environmental analysis must

evaluate reasonable alternatives as defined in Sec. 989.8.

Sec. 989.8 Analysis of alternatives.

The Air Force must analyze reasonable alternatives to the proposed

action and the ``no action'' alternative in all EAs and EISs, as fully

as the proposed action alternative.

(a) ``Reasonable'' alternatives are those that meet the underlying

purpose and need for the proposed action and that would cause a

reasonable person to inquire further before choosing a particular

course of action. Reasonable alternatives are not limited to those

directly within the power of the Air Force to implement. They may

involve another government agency or military service to assist in the

project or even to become the lead agency. The Air Force must also

consider reasonable alternatives raised during the scoping process (see

Sec. 989.18) or suggested by others, as well as combinations of

alternatives. The Air Force need not analyze highly speculative

alternatives, such as those requiring a major, unlikely change in law

or governmental policy. If the Air Force identifies a large number of

reasonable alternatives, it may limit alternatives selected for

detailed environmental analysis to a reasonable range or to a

reasonable number of examples covering the full spectrum of

alternatives.

(b) The Air Force may expressly eliminate alternatives from

detailed analysis, based on reasonable selection standards (for

example, operational, technical, or environmental standards suitable to

a particular project). Proponents may develop written selection

standards to firmly establish what is a ``reasonable'' alternative for

a particular project, but they must not so narrowly define these

standards that they unnecessarily limit consideration to the proposal

initially favored by proponents. This discussion of reasonable

alternatives applies equally to EAs and EISs.

and assess the environmental impacts of the ``no action'' alternative.

``No action'' may mean either that current management practice will not

change or that the proposed action will not take place. If no action

would result in other predictable actions, those actions should be

discussed within the no action alternative section. The discussion of

the no action alternative and the other alternatives should be

comparable in detail to that of the proposed action.

Sec. 989.9 Cooperation and adoption.

(a) Lead and Cooperating Agency (40 CFR 1501.5-1501.6). When the

Air Force is a cooperating agency in the preparation of an EIS, the Air

Force reviews and approves principal environmental documents within the

EIAP as if they were prepared by the Air Force. The Air Force executes

a Record of Decision for its program decisions that are based on an EIS

for which the Air Force is a cooperating agency. The Air Force may also

be a lead or cooperating agency on an EA using similar procedures, but

the MAJCOM EPC retains approval authority unless otherwise directed by

HQ USAF. Before invoking provisions of 40 CFR 1501.5(e), the lowest

authority level possible resolves disputes concerning which agency is

the lead or cooperating agency.

(b) Adoption of EA or EIS. The Air Force, even though not a

cooperating agency, may adopt an EA or EIS prepared by another entity

where the proposed action is substantially the same as the action

described in the EA or EIS. In this case, the EA or EIS must be

recirculated as a final EA or EIS but the Air Force must independently

review the EA or EIS and determine that it is current and that it

satisfies the requirements of this part. The Air Force then prepares

its own FONSI or ROD, as the case may be. In the situation where the

proposed action is not substantially the same as that described in the

EA or the EIS, the Air Force may adopt the EA or EIS, or a portion

thereof, by circulating the EA or EIS as a draft and then preparing the

final EA or EIS.

Sec. 989.10 Tiering.

The Air Force should use tiered (40 CFR 1502.20) environmental

documents, and environmental documents prepared by other agencies, to

eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and to focus on the

issues relating to specific actions. If the Air Force adopts another

Federal agency's environmental document, subsequent Air Force

environmental documents may also be tiered.

Sec. 989.11 Combining EIAP with other documentation.

(a) The EPF combines environmental analysis with other related

documentation when practicable (40 CFR 1506.4) following the procedures

prescribed by the CEQ regulations and this part.

(b) The EPF must integrate comprehensive planning (AFI 32-7062, Air

Force Comprehensive Planning)7 with the requirements of NEPA and

the EIAP. Prior to making a decision to proceed, the EPF must analyze

the environmental impacts that could result from implementation of a

proposal identified in the comprehensive plan.

\7\See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.

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

Sec. 989.12 Air Force Form 813, request for environmental impact

analysis.

The Air Force uses AF Form 813 to document the need for

environmental analysis or for certain CATEX determinations for proposed

actions. The form helps narrow and focus the issues to potential

environmental impacts. AF Form 813 must be retained with the EA or EIS

to record the focusing of environmental issues. The rationale for not

addressing environmental issues must also be recorded in the EA or EIS.

[[Page 4552]]

Sec. 989.13 Categorical exclusion.

(a) CATEXs apply to those classes of actions that do not

individually or cumulatively have potential for significant effect on

the environment and do not, therefore, require further environmental

analysis in an EA or an EIS. The list of Air Force-approved CATEXs is

in attachment 2 of this part. Command supplements to this part may not

add CATEXs or expand the scope of the CATEXs in attachment 2 of this

part.

(b) Characteristics of categories of actions that usually do not

require either an EIS or an EA (in the absence of extraordinary

circumstances) include:

(1) Minimal adverse effect on environmental quality.

(2) No significant change to existing environmental conditions.

(3) No significant cumulative environmental impact.

(4) Socioeconomic effects only.

(5) Similarity to actions previously assessed and found to have no

significant environmental impacts.

General exemptions specific to actions abroad are in 32 CFR Part 187.

The EPF or other decision-maker forwards requests for additional

exemption determinations for actions abroad to HQ USAF/CEV with a

justification letter.

(d) Normally, any decision-making level may determine the

applicability of a CATEX and need not formally record the determination

on AF Form 813 or elsewhere, except as noted in the CATEX list.

(e) Application of a CATEX to an action does not eliminate the need

to meet air conformity requirements (see Sec. 989.28).

Sec. 989.14 Environmental assessment.

(a) When a proposed action is one not usually requiring an EIS but

is not categorically excluded, the EPF must prepare an EA (40 CFR

1508.9). Every EA must lead to either a FONSI, a decision to prepare an

EIS, or no decision on the proposal.

(b) Whenever a proposed action usually requires an EIS, the EPF

responsible for the EIAP may prepare an EA to definitively determine if

an EIS is required based on the analysis of environmental impacts.

Alternatively, the EPF may choose to bypass the EA and proceed with

preparation of an EIS.

(1) Provides analysis sufficient to determine whether to prepare an

EIS or a FONSI.

(2) Aids the Air Force in complying with the NEPA when no EIS is

required.

(d) An EA discusses the need for the proposed action, reasonable

alternatives to the proposed action, the affected environment, the

environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives

(including the ``no action'' alternative), and a listing of agencies

and persons consulted during preparation.

(e) The format for the EA is the same as the EIS. The alternatives

section of an EA and an EIS are similar and should follow the

alternatives analysis guidance outlined in Sec. 989.8.

(f) The EPF should design the EA to facilitate rapidly transforming

the document into an EIS if the environmental analysis reveals a

significant impact.

(g) Certain EAs require SAF/MIQ approval because they involve

topics of special importance or interest. Unless directed otherwise by

SAF/MIQ, the EPF must forward the following types of EAs to SAF/MIQ

through HQ USAF/CEV (copy to AFCEE/EC for technical review), along with

an unsigned FONSI:

(1) EAs for actions where the Air Force has wetlands or floodplains

compliance responsibilities (E.O. 11988 and E.O. 11990). A Finding of

No Practicable Alternative (FONPA) must be submitted to HQ USAF/CEV

when the alternative selected is located in wetlands or floodplains,

and must discuss why no other practical alternative exists to avoid

impacts. See AFI 32-7064, Integrated Resources Management.8

\8\See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.

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

(2) System acquisition EAs.

(3) All EAs on non-Air Force agency proposals that require an Air

Force decision, such as use of Air Force property for highways and

joint-use proposals.

(4) EAs for actions that require the Air Force to make conformity

determinations pursuant to the Clean Air Act, as amended, and the

implementing rules. Conformity determinations are made by SAF/MIQ, see

Sec. 989.28.

(5) EAs where mitigation to insignificance is accomplished in lieu

of initiating an EIS (Sec. 989.22(c)).

(h) A few examples of actions that normally require preparation of

an EA (except as indicated in the CATEX list) include:

(1) Public land withdrawals of less than 5,000 acres.

(2) Minor mission realignments and aircraft beddowns.

(3) Building construction on base within developed areas.

(4) Minor modifications to Military Operating Areas (MOA), air-to-

ground weapons ranges, and military training routes.

(5) Remediation of hazardous waste disposal sites.

(i) Abbreviated Environmental Assessment. In special circumstances,

when the potential environmental impacts of a proposed action are

clearly insignificant (as documented on AF Form 813) and none of the

CATEXs in attachment 2 of this part apply, the EPF can use an

abbreviated EA to assess the action. At a minimum, the abbreviated EA

will consist of:

(1) AF Form 813 with attachments analyzing the environmental

impacts of the proposed action and reasonable alternatives.

(2) A concise description of the affected environment.

(3) A concise FONSI (see Sec. 989.15).

(j) The Air Force should involve environmental agencies,

applicants, and the public in the preparation of EAs (40 CFR

1501.4(b)). The extent of involvement usually coincides with the

magnitude and complexity of the proposed action and its potential

environmental effect on the area. For proposed actions described in

Sec. 989.15(e)(2), use either the scoping process described in

Sec. 989.18 or the public notice process in Sec. 989.23(b) and (c).

Sec. 989.15 Finding of no significant impact.

(a) The FONSI (40 CFR 1508.13) briefly describes why an action

would not have a significant effect on the environment and thus will

not be the subject of an EIS. The FONSI must summarize the EA or,

preferably, have it attached and incorporated by reference, and must

note any other environmental documents related to the action.

(b) If the EA is not attached, the FONSI must include:

(1) Name of the action.

(2) Brief description of the action (including alternatives

considered and the chosen alternative).

(3) Brief discussion of anticipated environmental effects.

(4) Conclusions leading to the FONSI.

(5) All mitigation actions that will be adopted with implementation

of the proposal (see Sec. 989.22).

two typewritten pages. Stand-alone FONSIs without an attached EA may be

longer.

(d) For actions of regional or local interest, disseminate the

FONSI according to Sec. 989.23. The MAJCOM and NGB are responsible for

release of FONSIs to regional offices of Federal agencies, the state

single point of contact (SPOC), and state agencies concurrent with

local release by the installations. [[Page 4553]]

(e) The EPF must provide the FONSI and complete EA to organizations

and individuals requesting them and to whomever the proponent or the

EPF has reason to believe is interested in the action. The EPF provides

a copy of the documents without cost to organizations and individuals

requesting them. The earliest of the FONSI transmittal date (date of

letter of transmittal) to the SPOC or other interested party is the

official notification date.

(1) The EPF must make the draft EA/FONSI available to the affected

public unless disclosure is precluded for security classification

reasons. Before the FONSI is signed and the action is implemented, the

EPF should allow sufficient time to receive comments from the public.

The time period will reflect the magnitude of the proposed action and

its potential for controversy. The greater the magnitude of the

proposed action or its potential for controversy, the longer the time

that must be allowed for public review. Mandatory review periods for

certain defined actions are contained in Sec. 989.15(e)(2). These are

not all inclusive but merely specific examples. In every case where an

EA/FONSI is prepared, the proponent and EPF must determine how much

time will be allowed for public review. In all cases, other than

classified actions, a public review period should be the norm unless

clearly unnecessary due to the lack of potential controversy.

(2) In the following circumstances, the EA and draft FONSI are made

available for public review for at least 30 days before FONSI approval

and implementing the action (40 CFR 1501.4(e)(2)):

(i) When the proposed action is, or is closely similar to, one that

usually requires preparation of an EIS (see Sec. 989.16).

(ii) If it is an unusual case, a new kind of action, or a

precedent-setting case in terms of its potential environmental impacts.

(iii) If the proposed action would be located in a floodplain or

wetland.

(iv) If the action is mitigated to insignificance in the FONSI, in

lieu of an EIS (Sec. 989.22(c)).

(v) If the proposed action is a change to airspace use or

designation.

(f) As a rule, the same organizational level that prepares the EA

reviews and recommends the FONSI for approval by the EPC. MAJCOMs may

decide the level of EA approval and FONSI signature, except as provided

in Sec. 989.14(g).

(g) Air Force staff must get permission to deviate from the

procedures outlined in this part from SAF/MIQ in accordance with

Sec. 989.30.

Sec. 989.16 Environmental impact statement.

(a) Certain classes of environmental impacts require preparation of

an EIS (40 CFR Part 1502). These include, but are not limited to:

(1) Potential for significant degradation of the environment.

(2) Potential for significant threat or hazard to public health or

safety.

(3) Substantial environmental controversy concerning the

significance or nature of the environmental impact of a proposed

action.

(b) Certain other actions normally, but not always, require an EIS.

These include, but are not limited to:

(1) Public land withdrawals of over 5,000 acres (Engle Act, 43

U.S.C. 155-158).

(2) Establishment of new air-to-ground weapons ranges.

(3) Site selection of new airfields.

(4) Site selection of major installations.

(5) Development of major new weapons systems (at decision points

that involve demonstration, validation, production, deployment, and

area or site selection for deployment).

(6) Establishing or expanding supersonic training areas over land

below 30,000 feet MSL (mean sea level).

(7) Disposal and reuse of closing installations.

Sec. 989.17 Notice of intent.

The EPF must furnish to HQ USAF/CEV the NOI (40 CFR 1508.22)

describing the proposed action for publication in the Federal Register.

The EPF, through the host base public affairs office, will also provide

the NOI to newspapers and other media in the area potentially affected

by the proposed action. The EPF must provide copies of the notice to

the proper state SPOC (E.O. 12372) and must also distribute it to

requesting agencies, organizations, and individuals. Along with the

draft NOI, the EPF must also forward the completed DOPAA to HQ USAF for

review.

Sec. 989.18 Scoping.

After publication of the NOI for an EIS, the EPF must initiate the

public scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7) to determine the scope of issues

to be addressed and to help identify significant environmental issues

to be analyzed in depth. Methods of scoping range from soliciting

written comments to conducting public scoping meetings (see 40 CFR

1501.7 and 1506.6(e)). The purpose of this process is to de-emphasize

insignificant issues and focus the scope of the environmental analysis

on significant issues (40 CFR 1500.4(g)). The result of scoping is that

the proponent and EPF determine the range of actions, alternatives, and

impacts to be considered in the EIS (40 CFR 1508.25). The EPF must send

meeting plans for scoping meetings to AF/CEV (or ANGRC/CEV) for SAF/MIQ

concurrence no later than 30 days before the first scoping meeting.

Scoping meeting plans are similar in content to public hearing plans

(see attachment 3 of this part).

Sec. 989.19 Draft EIS.

(a) Preliminary draft. The EPF prepares a Preliminary draft EIS

(PDEIS) (40 CFR 1502.9) based on the scope of issues decided on during

the scoping process. The format of the EIS must be in accordance with

the format recommended in the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.10 and

1502.11). The CEQ regulations indicate that EISs are normally fewer

than 150 pages (300 pages for proposals of unusual complexity). The EPF

provides a sufficient number of copies of the PDEIS to HQ USAF/CEV for

HQ USAF EPC review and to AFCEE/EC for technical review.

(b) Review of draft EIS. After the HQ USAF EPC review, the EPF

makes any necessary revisions to the PDEIS and forwards it to HQ USAF/

CEV as a draft EIS for security and policy review. Once the draft EIS

is approved, HQ USAF/CEV notifies the EPF to print sufficient copies of

the draft EIS for distribution to congressional delegations and

interested agencies. After congressional distribution, the EPF sends

the draft EIS to all others on the distribution list. HQ USAF/CEV then

files the document with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and

provides a copy to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for

Environmental Security.

comment period for the draft EIS is at least 45 days from the

publication date of the notice of availability (NOA) of the draft EIS

in the Federal Register. EPA publishes in the Federal Register, each

week, NOAs of EISs filed during the preceding week. This public comment

period may be extended an additional 15 days, at the request of the

EPF. If the draft EIS is unusually long, the EPF may distribute a

summary to the public with an attached list of locations (such as

public libraries) where the entire draft EIS may be reviewed. The EPF

must distribute the full draft EIS to certain entities, for example

agencies with jurisdiction by law or agencies with special expertise in

evaluating the [[Page 4554]] environmental impacts, and anyone else

requesting the entire draft EIS (40 CFR 1502.19).

(2) The EPF holds public hearings on the draft EIS according to the

procedures in 40 CFR 1506.6(c) and (d). Hearings take place no sooner

than 15 days after the Federal Register NOA and at least 15 days before

the end of the comment period. Scheduling hearings toward the end of

the comment period is encouraged to allow the public to obtain and more

thoroughly review the draft EIS. The EPF must provide hearing plans to

HQ USAF/CEV (or ANGRC/CEV) for SAF/MIQ concurrence no later than 30

days prior to the first public hearing. See attachment 3 of this part

for public hearing procedures.

(d) Response to comments (40 CFR 1503.4). The EPF must incorporate

its responses to comments in the final EIS by either modifying the text

and referring in the appendix to where the appropriate modification is

addressed or providing a written explanation in the comments section,

or both. The EPF may group comments of a similar nature together to

allow a common response and may also respond to individuals separately.

(e) Seeking additional comments. The EPF may, at any time during

the EIS process, seek additional public comments, such as when there

has been a significant change in circumstances, development of

significant new information of a relevant nature, or where there is

substantial environmental controversy concerning the proposed action.

Significant new information leading to public controversy regarding the

scope after the scoping process is such a changed circumstance. An

additional public comment period may also be necessary after the

publication of the draft EIS due to public controversy or changes made

as the result of previous public comments. Such periods when additional

public comments are sought shall last for at least 30 days.

Sec. 989.20 Final EIS.

(a) If changes in the draft EIS are minor or limited to factual

corrections and responses to comments, the proponent may, with the

prior approval of SAF/MIQ, prepare a document containing only draft EIS

comments, Air Force responses, and errata sheets of changes staffed to

the HQ USAF EPC for coordination. However, the proponent must submit

the draft EIS and all of the above documents, with a new cover sheet

indicating that it is a final EIS (40 CFR 1503.4(c)), to HQ USAF/CEV

for filing with the EPA (40 CFR 1506.9). If more extensive

modifications are required, the EPF must prepare a preliminary final

EIS incorporating these modifications for coordination within the Air

Force. Regardless of which procedure is followed, the final EIS must be

processed in the same way as the draft EIS, except that the public need

not be invited to comment during the 30-day post-filing waiting period.

The final EIS should be furnished to every person, organization, or

agency that made substantive comments on the draft EIS or requested a

copy. Although the EPF is not required to respond to public comments

received during this period, comments received must be considered in

determining final decisions such as identifying the preferred

alternative, appropriate mitigations, or if a supplemental analysis is

required.

(b) The EPF processes all necessary supplements to EISs (40 CFR

1502.9) in the same way as the original draft and final EIS, except

that a new scoping process is not required.

5 years from the date of the FEIS approval, reevaluation of the

documentation should be accomplished to ensure its continued validity.

Sec. 989.21 Record of decision.

(a) The MAJCOM prepares draft RODs, formally staffs them to HQ

USAF/CEV for verification of adequacy, and forwards them to the final

decision-maker for signature. A ROD (40 CFR 1505.2) is a concise public

document stating what an agency's decision is on a specific action. The

ROD may be integrated into any other document required to implement the

agency's decision. A decision on a course of action may not be made

until 30 days after publication of the NOA of the final EIS in the

Federal Register. EPA publishes NOAs each Friday; when Friday is a

holiday, the notice is published on Thursday.

(b) The Air Force must announce the ROD to the affected public as

specified in Sec. 989.23, except for classified portions. The ROD

should be concise and should explain the conclusion, the reason for the

selection, and the alternatives considered. The ROD must identify the

course of action (proposed action or an alternative) that is considered

environmentally preferable regardless of whether it is the alternative

selected for implementation. The ROD should summarize all the major

factors the agency weighed in making its decision, including essential

considerations of national policy.

practicable means to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental impacts

and, if not, explain why.

Sec. 989.22 Mitigation.

(a) When preparing EIAP documents, indicate clearly whether

mitigation measures (40 CFR 1508.20) must be implemented for the

alternative selected. Discuss mitigation measures in terms of ``will''

and ``would'' when such measures have already been incorporated into

the proposal. Use terms like ``may'' and ``could'' when proposing or

suggesting mitigation measures. Both the public and the Air Force

community need to know what commitments are being considered and

selected, and who will be responsible for implementing, funding, and

monitoring the mitigation measures.

(b) The proponent funds and implements mitigation measures in the

mitigation plan that are approved by the decision-maker. Where possible

and appropriate because of amount, the proponent should include the

cost of mitigation as a line item in the budget for a proposed project.

The proponent must keep the EPF informed of the status of mitigation

measures when the proponent implements the action. The EPF monitors the

progress of mitigation implementation and reports its status to HQ

USAF/CEV on a periodic basis. Upon request, the EPF must also provide

the results of relevant mitigation monitoring to the public.

significant environmental impacts found during preparation of an EA, in

lieu of preparing an EIS. The FONSI for the EA must include these

mitigation measures. Such mitigations are legally binding and must be

carried out as the proponent implements the project. If, for any

reason, the project proponent later abandons or revises in

environmentally-adverse ways the mitigation commitments made in the

FONSI, the proponent must prepare a supplemental EIAP document before

continuing the project. If potentially significant environmental

impacts would result from any project revisions, the proponent must

prepare an EIS.

(d) For each FONSI or ROD containing mitigation measures, the

proponent publishes a plan specifically identifying each mitigation,

discussing how the proponent will execute the mitigations, identifying

who will fund and implement the mitigations, and stating when the

proponent will complete the mitigation. The mitigation plan will be

forwarded to HQ USAF/CEV for review within 90 days from the date of

signature of the FONSI or ROD.

[[Page 4555]]

Sec. 989.23 Public notification.

Except as provided in Sec. 989.25, public notification is required

for various aspects of the EIAP.

(a) Activities that require public notification include:

(1) The FONSI for an EA.

(2) An EIS NOI.

(3) Public scoping meetings.

(4) Availability of the draft EIS.

(5) Public hearings on the draft EIS (which should be included in

the NOA for the draft EIS).

(6) Availability of the final EIS.

(7) The ROD for an EIS.

(b) For actions of local concern, the list of possible notification

methods in 40 CFR 1506.6(b)(3) is only illustrative. The EPF may use

other equally effective means of notification as a substitute for any

of the methods listed. Because many Air Force actions are of limited

interest to persons or organizations outside the Air Force, the EPF may

limit local notification to the SPOC, local government representatives,

and local news media. For all FONSI or EIS notices, if the news media

fail to carry the story and, in the case of a FONSI, if the action

requires that, after public notice of the FONSI, 30 days must pass

before a decision or any action is permissible (see Sec. 989.15(e)(2)),

the public affairs officer must purchase an advertisement in the local

newspaper(s) of general circulation (not ``legal'' newspapers or

``legal section'' of general newspapers).

local notification when it sends written notification to the state SPOC

or other organization (date of letter of notification) or when the

local media carries the story (date of story), whichever occurs first.

Operations and maintenance funds pay for the advertisements.

Sec. 989.24 Base closure and realignment.

Base closure or realignment may entail special requirements for

environmental analysis. The permanent base closure and realignment law,

10 U.S.C. 2687, requires a report to the Congress when an installation

where at least 300 DoD civilian personnel are authorized to be employed

is closed, or when a realignment reduces such an installation by at

least 50 percent or 1,000 of such personnel, whichever is less. In

addition, other base closure laws may be in effect during particular

periods. Such non-permanent closure laws frequently contain provisions

limiting the extent of environmental analysis required for actions

taken under them. Such provisions may also add requirements for studies

not necessarily required by NEPA. When dealing with base closure or

realignment EIAP documents, MAJCOMs and HQ USAF offices should obtain

legal advice on special congressional requirements. Consult with HQ

USAF/XOO, the HQ USAF focal point for the realignment process, decision

documents, and congressional requirements.

Sec. 989.25 Classified actions (40 CFR 1507.3(c)).

(a) Classification of an action for national defense or foreign

policy purposes does not relieve the requirement of complying with

NEPA. In classified matters, the Air Force must prepare and make

available normal NEPA environmental analysis documents to aid in the

decision making process; however, Air Force staff must prepare,

safeguard and disseminate these documents according to established

procedures for protecting classified documents. If an EIAP document

must be classified, the Air Force may modify or eliminate associated

requirements for public notice (including publication in the Federal

should obtain comments on classified proposed actions or classified

aspects of generally unclassified actions, from public agencies having

jurisdiction by law or special expertise, to the extent that such

review and comment is consistent with security requirements. Where

feasible, the EPF may need to help appropriate personnel from those

agencies obtain necessary security clearances to gain access to

documents so they can comment on scoping or review the documents.

(b) Where the proposed action is classified and unavailable to the

public, the Air Force may keep the entire NEPA process classified and

protected under the applicable procedures for the classification level

pertinent to the particular information. At times (for example, during

weapons system development and base closures and realignments), certain

but not all aspects of NEPA documents may later be declassified. In

those cases, the EPF should organize the EIAP documents, to the extent

practicable, in a way that keeps the most sensitive classified

information (which is not expected to be released at any early date) in

a separate annex that can remain classified; the rest of the EIAP

documents, when declassified, will then be comprehensible as a unit and

suitable for release to the public. Thus, the documents will reflect,

as much as possible, the nature of the action and its environmental

impacts, as well as Air Force compliance with NEPA requirements.

aspects of it need to be protected by security classification, the EPF

should tailor the EIAP for a proposed action to permit as normal a

level of public involvement as possible, but also fully protect the

classified part of the action and environmental analysis. In some

instances, the EPF can do this by keeping the classified sections of

the EIAP documents in a separate, classified annex.

(d) For Sec. 989.25(b) actions, an NOI or NOA will not be published

in the Federal Register until the proposed action is declassified. For

Sec. 989.25(c) actions, the Federal Register will run an unclassified

NOA which will advise the public that at some time in the future the

Air Force may or will publicly release a declassified document.

(e) The EPF similarly protects classified aspects of FONSIs, RODs,

or other environmental documents that are part of the EIAP for a

proposed action, such as by preparing separate classified annexes to

unclassified documents, as necessary.

(f) Whenever a proponent believes that EIAP documents should be

kept classified, the EPF must make a report of the matter to SAF/MIQ,

including proposed modifications of the normal EIAP to protect

classified information. The EPF may make such submissions at whatever

level of security classification is needed to provide a comprehensive

understanding of the issues. SAF/MIQ, with support from SAF/GC and

other staff elements as necessary, makes final decisions on EIAP

procedures for classified actions.

Sec. 989.26 Occupational safety and health.

Assess direct and indirect impacts of proposed actions on the

safety and health of Air Force employees and others at a work site.

Normally, compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA) standards will mitigate hazards. The EIAP document does not need

to specify such compliance procedures. However, the EIAP documents

should discuss impacts that require a change in work practices to

achieve an adequate level of health and safety.

Sec. 989.27 Airspace proposals.

The DoD and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have entered

into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that outlines various airspace

responsibilities. For purposes of compliance with NEPA, the DoD is the

``lead agency'' for all proposals initiated [[Page 4556]] by DoD, with

the FAA acting as the ``cooperating agency.'' Where airspace proposals

initiated by the FAA affect military use, the roles are reversed. The

proponent's action officers (civil engineering and local airspace

management) must ensure that the FAA is fully integrated into the

airspace proposal and related EIAP from the very beginning and that the

action officers review the FAA's responsibilities as a cooperating

agency. The proponent's airspace manager develops the preliminary

airspace proposal per appropriate FAA handbooks and the FAA-DoD MOU.

The preliminary airspace proposal is the basis for initial dialogue

between DoD and the FAA on the proposed action. A close working

relationship between DoD and the FAA, through the FAA regional Air

Force representative, greatly facilitates the airspace proposal process

and helps resolve many NEPA issues during the EIAP.

Sec. 989.28 Air quality.

Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 42 U.S.C.

7506(c), establishes a conformity requirement for Federal agencies

which has been implemented by regulation, 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B.

All EIAP documents must address applicable conformity requirements and

the status of compliance. Conformity applicability analyses and

determinations are separate and distinct requirements and should be

documented separately. To increase the utility of a conformity

determination in performing the EIAP, the conformity determination

should be completed prior to the completion of the EIAP so as to allow

incorporation of the information from the conformity determination into

the EIAP.

Sec. 989.29 Pollution prevention.

The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 13101(b),

established a national policy to prevent or reduce pollution at the

source, whenever feasible. Pollution prevention approaches should be

applied to all pollution-generating activities. The environmental

document should analyze potential pollution that may result from the

proposed action and alternatives and must incorporate pollution

prevention measures whenever feasible. Where pollution cannot be

prevented, the environmental analysis and proposed mitigation measures

should include, wherever possible, recycling, energy recovery,

treatment, and environmentally safe disposal actions (see AFI 32-7080,

Pollution Prevention Program9).

\9\See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.

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

Sec. 989.30 Special and emergency procedures.

(a) Special procedures. During the EIAP, unique situations may

arise that require EIAP strategies different than those set forth in

this part. These situations may warrant modification of the procedures

in this part. EPFs should only consider procedural deviations when the

resulting process would benefit the Air Force and still comply with

NEPA and CEQ regulations. EPFs must forward all requests for procedural

deviations to HQ USAF/CEV (or ANGRC/CEV) for review and approval by

SAF/MIQ.

(b) Emergency procedures (40 CFR 1506.11). Certain emergency

situations may make it necessary to take immediate action having

significant environmental impact, without observing all the provisions

of the CEQ regulations or this part. If possible, promptly notify HQ

USAF/CEV, for SAF/MIQ coordination and CEQ consultation, before

undertaking emergency actions that would otherwise not comply with NEPA

or this part. The immediate notification requirement does not apply

where emergency action must be taken without delay. Coordination in

this instance must take place as soon as practicable.

Sec. 989.31 Reporting requirements.

(a) EAs, EISs, and mitigation measures will be tracked through the

Work Information Management System-Environmental Subsystem (WIMS-ES),

as required by AFI 32-7002, Environmental Information Management

System.10 ANGRC/CE will provide EIAP updates to HQ USAF/CEV

through the WIMS-ES.

\10\See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.

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

(b) All documentation will be disposed of according to AFMAN 37-

139, Records Disposition--Standards (formerly AFR 4-20, Volume

211).

\11\See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.

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

Sec. 989.32 Procedures for analysis abroad.

Procedures for analysis of environmental actions abroad are

contained in 32 CFR Part 187. That directive provides comprehensive

policies, definitions, and procedures for implementing E.O. 12114,

Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions. For analysis of

Air Force actions abroad, 32 CFR Part 187 will be followed. Also, refer

to Environmental Defense Fund v. Massey, 986 F. 2d 528.

Sec. 989.33 Requirements for analysis abroad.

The EPF will generally perform the same functions for analysis of

actions abroad that it performs in the United States. In addition to

the requirements of 32 CFR Part 187, the following Air Force specific

rules apply:

(a) For EAs dealing with global commons, HQ USAF/CEV will review

actions that are above the MAJCOM approval authority. In this instance,

approval authority refers to the same approval authority that would

apply to an EA in the United States. The EPF documents a decision not

to do an EIS.

(b) For EISs dealing with the global commons, the EPF provides

sufficient copies to HQ USAF/CEV for the HQ USAF EPC review and AFCEE/

EC technical review. After EPC review, the EPF makes a recommendation

as to whether the proposed draft EIS will be released as a draft EIS.

all environmental studies and reviews to HQ USAF/CEV for coordination

among appropriate Federal agencies. HQ USAF/CEV makes environmental

studies and reviews available to the Department of State and other

interested Federal agencies, and, on request, to the United States

public, in accordance with 32 CFR Part 187. HQ USAF/CEV also may inform

interested foreign governments or furnish copies of studies, in

accordance with 32 CFR Part 187.

Attachment 1 to Part 989--Glossary of References, Abbreviations,

Acronyms, and Terms

References

Legislative

10 U.S.C. 2687, Base closures and realignments

42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

42 U.S.C. 7506(c), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

42 U.S.C. 13101(b), Pollution Prevention Act of 1990

43 U.S.C. 155-158, Engle Act

Executive Orders

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, May 24, 1977 (3 CFR,

1977 Comp., p. 117)

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, May 24, 1977 (3 CFR,

1977 Comp., p. 121)

Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal

Actions, January 4, 1979 (3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 356)

Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,

July 14, 1982 (3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. 197)

US Government Agency Publications

Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the

Procedural Provisions of the National [[Page 4557]] Environmental

Policy Act, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508

DoD Instruction 5000.2, Defense Acquisition Management Policies and

Procedures, February 23, 1991, with Change 1, and Air Force

Supplement 1, Acquisition Management Policies, 31 August 1993, with

Change 1

DoD Manual 5000.2-M, Defense Acquisition Management Documentation

and Reports, February 1991

DoD Directive 6050.1, Environmental Effects in the United States of

DoD Actions, July 30, 1979 (32 CFR Part 188)

DoD Directive 6050.7, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major

Department of Defense Actions, March 31, 1979 (32 CFR Part 187)

Air Force Publications

AFPD 32-70, Environmental Quality

AFI 32-1021, Planning and Programming of Facility Construction

Projects

AFI 32-7002, Environmental Information Management System

AFI 32-7062, Air Force Comprehensive Planning

AFI 32-7064, Integrated Resources Management

AFI 32-7080, Pollution Prevention Program

AFI 35-202, Environmental Community Involvement

AFMAN 37-139, Records Disposition--Standards

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Abbreviation or acronym Definition

AFCEE Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence

AFCEE/EC Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence/

Environmental Conservation and Planning Directorate

AFI Air Force Instruction

AFLSA/JACE Air Force Legal Services Agency/Environmental Law and

Litigation Division

AFLSA/JAJT Air Force Legal Services Agency/Trial Judiciary Division

AFMAN Air Force Manual

AFMOA/SG Air Force Medical Operations Agency/Aerospace Medicine

Office

AFPD Air Force Policy Directive

AFRES Air Force Reserve

ANG Air National Guard

ANGRC Air National Guard Readiness Center

CATEX Categorical Exclusion

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DAB Defense Acquisition Board

DoD Department of Defense

DoDD Department of Defense Directive

DoDM Department of Defense Manual

DOPAA Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

EA Environmental Assessment

EIAP Environmental Impact Analysis Process

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

E.O. Executive Order

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPC Environmental Protection Committee

EPF Environmental Planning Function

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FOA Field Operating Agency

FONPA Finding of No Practicable Alternative

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

GSA General Services Administration

HQ AFMC Headquarters, Air Force Materiel Command

HQ USAF Headquarters, United States Air Force

HQ USAF/CE The Air Force Civil Engineer

MAJCOM Major Command

MOA Military Operating Area

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MSL Mean Sea Level

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NGB-CF National Guard Bureau Air Directorate

NGB-JA National Guard Bureau Office of the Staff Judge Advocate

NGB-PA National Guard Bureau Office of Public Affairs

NOA Notice of Availability

NOI Notice of Intent

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PDEIS Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement

RCO Air Force Regional Compliance Office

ROD Record of Decision

SAF/GC Air Force General Counsel

SAF/LL Air Force Office of Legislative Liaison

SAF/MI Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower, Reserve

Affairs, Installations, and Environment

SAF/MIQ Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Environment,

Safety, and Occupational Health)

SAF/PA Air Force Office of Public Affairs

SJA Staff Judge Advocate

SPOC Single Point of Contact

TDY Temporary Duty

U.S.C. United States Code

WIMS-ES Work Information Management System-Environmental Subsystem

Terms

Note: All terms listed in the CEQ Regulations, 40 CFR Part 1508,

apply to this part. In addition, the following terms apply:

Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives (DOPAA)--An Air

Force document that is the framework for assessing the environmental

impact of a proposal. It describes the purpose and need for the

action, the alternatives to be considered, and the rationale used to

arrive at the proposed action.

Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP)--The Air Force

program that implements the requirements of NEPA and requirements

for analysis of environmental effects abroad under E.O. 12114.

Finding of No Practicable Alternative (FONPA)--Documentation

according to Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 that explains why

there are no practicable alternatives to an action affecting a

wetland or floodplain, based on appropriate EIAP analysis or other

documentation.

Interdisciplinary--An approach to environmental analysis

involving more than one discipline or branch of learning.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)--The basic

national charter to protect the environment that requires all

Federal agencies to consider environmental impacts when making

decisions regarding proposed actions.

Pollution Prevention--``Source reduction'', as defined under the

Pollution Prevention Act, and other practices that reduce or

eliminate pollutants through increased efficiency in the use of raw

materials, energy, water, or other resources, or in the protection

of natural resources by conservation.

Proponent--Any office, unit, or activity that proposes to

initiate an action.

Scoping--A public process for proposing alternatives to be

addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a

proposed action.

United States--All states, commonwealths, the District of

Columbia, territories and possessions of the United States, and all

waters and airspace subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the

United States. The territories and possessions of the United States

include the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Wake Island, Midway

Island, Guam, Palmyra Island, Johnston Atoll, Navassa Island, and

Kingman Reef.

Attachment 2 to Part 989--Categorical Exclusions

A2.1. Proponent/EPF Responsibility. Although a proposed action

may qualify for a categorical exclusion from the requirements for

environmental impact analysis under NEPA, this exclusion does not

relieve the EPF or the proponent of responsibility for complying

with all other environmental requirements related to the proposal,

including requirements for permits, state regulatory agency review

of plans, and so on.

A2.2. Additional Analysis. Circumstances may arise in which

usually categorically excluded actions may have a significant

environmental impact and, therefore, may generate a requirement for

further environmental analysis. Examples of situations where such

unique circumstances may be present include:

A.2.2.1. Actions of greater scope or size than generally

experienced for a particular category of action.

A2.2.2. Potential for degradation (even though slight) of

already marginal or poor environmental conditions.

A2.2.3. Initiating a degrading influence, activity, or effect in

areas not already significantly modified from their natural

condition.

A2.2.4. Use of unproven technology.

A2.2.5. Use of hazardous or toxic substances that may come in

contact with the surrounding environment.

A2.2.6. Presence of threatened or endangered species,

archaeological remains, historical sites, or other protected

resources.

A2.2.7. Proposals adversely affecting areas of critical

environmental concern, such as prime or unique agricultural lands,

wetlands, coastal zones, wilderness areas, floodplains, or wild and

scenic river areas.

A2.3. CATEX List. Actions that are categorically excluded in the

absence of unique circumstances are:

A2.3.1. Routine procurement of goods and services.

A2.3.2. Routine Commissary and Exchange operations.

A2.3.3. Routine recreational and welfare activities.

A2.3.4. Normal personnel, fiscal or budgeting, and

administrative activities and [[Page 4558]] decisions including

those involving military and civilian personnel (for example,

recruiting, processing, paying, and records keeping).

A2.3.5. Preparing, revising, or adopting regulations,

instructions, directives, or guidance documents that do not,

themselves, result in an action being taken.

A2.3.6. Preparing, revising, or adopting regulations,

instructions, directives, or guidance documents that implement

(without substantial change) the regulations, instructions,

directives, or guidance documents from higher headquarters or other

Federal agencies with superior subject matter jurisdiction.

A2.3.7. Continuation or resumption of pre-existing actions,

where there is no substantial change in existing conditions or

existing land uses and where the actions were originally evaluated

in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and surrounding

circumstances have not changed.

A2.3.8. Performing interior and exterior construction within the

5-foot line of a building without changing the land use of the

existing building.

A2.3.9. Repairing and replacing real property installed

equipment.

A2.3.10. Routine facility maintenance and repair that does not

involve disturbing significant quantities of hazardous materials

such as asbestos.

A2.3.11. Actions similar to other actions which have been

determined to have an insignificant impact in a similar setting as

established in an EIS or an EA resulting in a FONSI. The EPF must

document application of this CATEX on AF Form 813, specifically

identifying the previous Air Force approved environmental document

which provides the basis for this determination.

A2.3.12. Installing, operating, modifying, and routinely

repairing and replacing utility and communications systems, data

processing cable, and similar electronic equipment that use existing

rights of way, easements, distribution systems, or facilities.

A2.3.13. Installing or modifying airfield operational equipment

(such as runway visual range equipment, visual glide path systems,

and remote transmitter or receiver facilities) on airfield property

and usually accessible only to maintenance personnel.

A2.3.14. Installing on previously developed land, equipment that

does not substantially alter land use (i.e., land use of more than

one acre). This includes outgrants to private lessees for similar

construction. The EPF must document application of this CATEX on AF

Form 813.

A2.3.15. Laying-away or mothballing a production facility or

adopting a reduced maintenance level at a closing installation when

(1) agreement on any required historic preservation effort has been

reached with the state historic preservation officer and the

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and (2) no degradation in

the environmental restoration program will occur.

A2.3.16. Acquiring land and ingrants (50 acres or less) for

activities otherwise subject to CATEX. The EPF must document

application of this CATEX on AF Form 813.

A2.3.17. Transferring land, facilities, and personal property

for which the General Services Administration (GSA) is the action

agency. Such transfers are excluded only if there is no change in

land use and GSA complies with its NEPA requirements.

A2.3.18. Transferring administrative control of real property

within the Air Force or to another military department or to another

Federal agency, including returning public domain lands to the

Department of the Interior.

A2.3.19. Granting easements, leases, licenses, rights of entry,

and permits to use Air Force controlled property for activities

that, if conducted by the Air Force, could be categorically excluded

in accordance with this attachment. The EPF must document

application of this CATEX on AF Form 813.

A2.3.20. Converting in-house services to contract services.

A2.3.21. Routine personnel decreases and increases, including

work force conversion to either on-base contractor operation or to

military operation from contractor operation (excluding base closure

and realignment actions which are subject to congressional reporting

under 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2687).

A2.3.22. Routine, temporary movement of personnel, including

deployments of personnel on a temporary duty (TDY) basis where

existing facilities are used.

A2.3.23. Personnel reductions resulting from workload

adjustments, reduced personnel funding levels, skill imbalances, or

other similar causes.

A2.3.24. Study efforts that involve no commitment of resources

other than personnel and funding allocations.

A2.3.25. The analysis and assessment of the natural environment

without altering it (inspections, audits, surveys, investigations).

This CATEX includes the granting of any permits necessary for such

surveys, provided that the technology or procedure involved is well

understood and there are no adverse environmental impacts

anticipated from it. The EPF must document application of this CATEX

on AF Form 813.

A2.3.26. Undertaking specific investigatory activities to

support remedial action activities for purposes of cleanup of

hazardous spillage or waste sites or contaminated groundwater or

soil. These activities include soil borings and sampling,

installation, and operation of test or monitoring wells. This CATEX

applies to studies that assist in determining final cleanup actions

when they are conducted in accordance with interagency agreements,

administrative orders, or work plans previously agreed to by EPA or

state regulators. Note: This CATEX does not apply to the selection

of the remedial action.

A2.3.27. Normal or routine basic and applied scientific research

confined to the laboratory and in compliance with all applicable

safety, environmental, and natural resource conservation laws.

A2.3.28. Routine transporting of hazardous materials and wastes

in accordance with applicable Federal, state, interstate, and local

laws.

A2.3.29. Emergency handling and transporting of small quantities

of chemical surety material or suspected chemical surety material,

whether or not classified as hazardous or toxic waste, from a

discovery site to a permitted storage, treatment, or disposal

facility.

A2.3.30. Immediate responses to the release or discharge of oil

or hazardous materials in accordance with an approved Spill

Prevention and Response Plan or Spill Contingency Plan or that are

otherwise consistent with the requirements of the National

Contingency Plan. Long-term cleanup and remediation activities

should be evaluated separately.

A2.3.31. Relocating a small number of aircraft to an

installation with similar aircraft that does not result in a

significant increase of total flying hours or the total number of

aircraft operations, a change in flight tracks, or an increase in

permanent personnel or logistics support requirements at the

receiving installation.

A2.3.32. Temporary (for less than 30 days) increases in air

operations up to 50 percent of the typical installation aircraft

operation rate or increases of 50 operations a day, whichever is

greater.

A2.3.33. Flying activities that comply with the Federal aviation

regulations, that are dispersed over a wide area and that do not

frequently (more than once a day) pass near the same ground points.

This CATEX does not cover regular activity on established routes or

within special use airspace.

A2.3.34. Supersonic flying operations over land and above 30,000

feet MSL, or over water and above 10,000 feet MSL and more than 15

nautical miles from land.

A2.3.35. Formal requests to the FAA, or host-nation equivalent

agency, to establish or modify special use airspace (for example,

restricted areas, warning areas, military operating areas) and

military training routes for subsonic operations that have a base

altitude of 3,000 feet above ground level or higher. The EPF must

document application of this CATEX on AF Form 813, which must

accompany the request to the FAA.

A2.3.36. Adopting airfield approach, departure, and en route

procedures that do not route air traffic over noise-sensitive areas,

including residential neighborhoods or cultural, historical, and

outdoor recreational areas. The EPF may categorically exclude such

air traffic patterns at or greater than 3,000 feet above ground

level regardless of underlying land use.

A2.3.37. Participating in ``air shows'' and fly-overs by Air

Force aircraft at non-Air Force public events after obtaining FAA

coordination and approval.

A2.3.38. Conducting Air Force ``open houses'' and similar

events, including air shows, golf tournaments, home shows, and the

like, where crowds gather at an Air Force installation, so long as

crowd and traffic control, etc., have not in the past presented

significant safety or environmental impacts.

Attachment 3 to Part 989--Procedures for Holding Public Hearings on

Draft Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)

A.3.1. General Information:

A.3.1.1. The Air Force solicits the views of the public and

special interest groups and, in appropriate cases, holds public

hearings on the draft EIS.

A3.1.2. The Office of the Judge Advocate General, through the

Air Force Legal Services [[Page 4559]] Agency/Trial Judiciary

Division (AFLSA/JAJT) and its field organization, is responsible for

conducting public hearings.

A3.1.3. The proponent EPF establishes the date and location,

arranges for hiring the court reporter, funds temporary duty costs

for the hearing officer, makes logistical arrangements (for example,

publishing notices, arranging for press coverage, obtaining tables

and chairs, etc.), and forwards the transcripts of the hearings to

AFLSA/JAJT.

A3.2. Notice of Hearing (40 CFR 1506.6):

A3.2.1. Public Affairs officers:

A3.2.1.1. Announce public hearings and assemble a mailing list

of individuals to be invited.

A3.2.1.2. Distribute announcements of a hearing to all

interested individuals and agencies, including the print and

electronic media.

A3.2.1.3. Under certain circumstances, purchase an advertisement

announcing the time and place of the hearing as well as other

pertinent particulars.

A3.2.1.4. Distribute the notice in a timely manner so it will

reach recipients or be published at least 15 days before the hearing

date. Distribute notices fewer than 15 days before the hearing date

when you have substantial justification and if the justification for

a shortened notice period appears in the notice.

A3.2.2. If an action has effects of national concern, publish

notices in the Federal Register and mail notices to national

organizations that have an interest in the matter.

A3.2.2.1. Because of the longer lead time required by the

Federal Register, send out notices for publication in the Federal

hearing date.

A3.2.3. The notice should include:

A3.2.3.1. Date, time, place, and subject of the hearing.

A3.2.3.2. A description of the general format of the hearing.

A3.2.3.3. The name and telephone number of a person to contact

for more information.

A3.2.3.4. The request that speakers submit (in writing or by

return call) their intention to participate, with an indication of

which environmental impact (or impacts) they wish to address.

A3.2.3.5. Any limitation on the length of oral statements.

A3.2.3.6. A suggestion that speakers submit statements of

considerable length in writing.

A3.2.3.7. A summary of the proposed action.

A3.2.3.8. The offices or location where the Draft EIS and any

appendices are available for examination.

A.3.3. Availability of the Draft EIS to the Public. The EPF

makes copies of the Draft EIS available to the public at an Air

Force installation or other suitable place in the vicinity of the

proposed action and public hearing.

A3.4. Place of the Hearing. The EPF arranges to hold the hearing

at a time and place and in an area readily accessible to military

and civilian organizations and individuals interested in the

proposed action. Generally, the EPF should arrange to hold the

hearing in an off-base civilian facility, which is more accessible

to the public.

A3.5. Hearing Officer:

A3.5.1. The AFLSA/JAJT selects a judge advocate, who is a

military judge with experience in conducting public meetings, to

preside over hearings. The hearing officer does not need to have

personal knowledge of the project, other than familiarity with the

Draft EIS. In no event should the hearing officer be the Staff Judge

Advocate of the proponent command, have participated personally in

the development of the project, or have rendered legal advice or

assistance with respect to it (or be expected to do so in the

future). The principal qualification of the hearing officer should

be the ability to conduct a hearing as an impartial participant.

A3.5.2. The primary duties of the hearing officer are to make

sure that the hearing is orderly, is recorded, and that interested

parties have a reasonable opportunity to speak. The presiding

officer should direct the speakers' attention to the purpose of the

hearing, which is to consider the environmental impacts of the

proposed project. Each speaker should have a time limit to provide

maximum public input to the decision-maker.

A3.6. Record of the Hearing. The hearing officer must make sure

a verbatim transcribed record of the hearing is prepared, including

all stated positions, all questions, and all responses. The hearing

officer should append all written submissions that parties provide

to the hearing officer during the hearing to the record as

attachments. The hearing officer should also append a list of

persons who spoke at the hearing and submitted written comments and

a list of the organizations or interests they represent with

addresses. The hearing officer must make sure a verbatim transcript

of the hearing is provided to the EPF for inclusion as an appendix

to the Final EIS. The officer should also ensure that all persons

who request a copy of the transcript get a copy when it is

completed. Copying charges are determined according to 40 CFR

1506.6(f).

A3.7. Hearing Format. Use the format outlined below as a general

guideline for conducting a hearing. Hearing officers should tailor

the format to meet the hearing objectives. These objectives provide

information to the public, record opinions of interested persons on

environmental impacts of the proposed action, and set out

alternatives for improving the EIS and for later consideration.

A3.7.1. Organizing Speakers by Subject. If time and

circumstances permit, the hearing officer should group speakers by

subject matter. For example, all persons wishing to address water

quality issues should make their presentations one after the other

so the EIS preparation team can review the transcript and make

summaries from it more easily.

A3.7.2. Record of Attendees. The hearing officer should make a

list of all persons who wish to speak at the hearing to help the

hearing officer in calling on these individuals, to ensure an

accurate transcript of the hearing, and to enable the officer to

send a copy of the Final EIS (40 CFR Sec. 1502.19) to any person,

organization, or agency that provided substantive comments at the

hearing. The hearing officer should assign assistants to the

entrance of the hearing room to provide cards on which individuals

can voluntarily write their names, addresses, telephone numbers,

organizations they represent, and titles; whether they desire to

make a statement at the hearing; and what environmental area(s) they

wish to address. The hearing officer can then use the cards to call

on individuals who desire to make statements. However, the hearing

officer will not deny entry to the hearing or the right to speak to

people who decline to submit this information on cards.

A3.7.3. Introductory Remarks. The hearing officer should first

introduce himself or herself and the EIS preparation team. Then the

hearing officer should make a brief statement on the purpose of the

hearing and give the general ground rules on how it will be

conducted. This is the proper time to welcome any dignitaries who

are present. The hearing officer should explain that he or she does

not make any recommendation or decision on whether the proposed

project should be continued, modified, or abandoned or how the EIS

should be prepared.

A3.7.4. Explanation of the Proposed Action. The Air Force EIS

preparation team representative should next explain the proposed

action, the alternatives, the potential environmental consequences,

and the EIAP.

A3.7.5. Questions by Attendees. After the EIS team

representative explains the proposed action, alternatives, and

consequences, the hearing officer should give attendees a chance to

ask questions to clarify points they may not have understood. The

hearing officer may have to reply in writing, at a later date, to

some of the questions. While the Air Force EIS preparation team

should be as responsive as possible in answering questions about the

proposal, they should not become involved in debate with questioners

over the merits of the proposed action. Cross-examination of

speakers, either those of the Air Force or the public, is not the

purpose of an informal hearing. If necessary, the hearing officer

may limit questioning or conduct portions of the hearing to ensure

proper lines of inquiry. However, the hearing officer should include

all questions in the hearing record.

A3.7.6. Statement of Attendees. The hearing officer must give

the persons attending the hearing a chance to present oral or

written statements. The hearing officer should be sure the recorder

has the name and address of each person who submits an oral or

written statement. The officer should also permit the attendees to

submit written statements within a reasonable time, usually two

weeks, following the hearing. The officer should allot a reasonable

length of time at the hearing for receiving oral statements. The

officer may waive any announced time limit at his or her discretion.

The hearing officer may allow those who have not previously

indicated a desire to speak to identify themselves and be recognized

only after those who have previously indicated their intentions to

speak have spoken.

A3.7.7. Ending or Extending a Hearing. The hearing officer has

the power to end the [[Page 4560]] hearing if the hearing becomes

disorderly, if the speakers become repetitive, or for other good

cause. In any such case, the hearing officer must make a statement

for the record on the reasons for terminating the hearing. The

hearing officer may also extend the hearing beyond the originally

announced date and time. The officer should announce the extension

to a later date or time during the hearing and prior to the hearing

if possible.

A3.8. Adjourning the Hearing. After all persons have had a

chance to speak, when the hearing has culled a representative view

of public opinion, or when the time set for the hearing and any

reasonable extension of time has ended, the hearing officer adjourns

the hearing. In certain circumstances (for example, if the hearing

officer believes it is likely that some participants will introduce

new and relevant information), the hearing officer may justify

scheduling an additional, separate hearing session. If the hearing

officer makes the decision to hold another hearing while presiding

over the original hearing he or she should announce that another

public hearing will be scheduled or is under consideration. The

officer gives notice of a decision to continue these hearings in

essentially the same way he or she announced the original hearing,

time permitting. The Public Affairs officer provides the required

public notices and directs notices to interested parties in

coordination with the hearing officer. Because of lead time

constraints, SAF/MIQ may waive Federal Register notice requirements

or advertisements in local publications. At the conclusion of the

hearing, the hearing officer should inform the attendees of the

deadline (usually 2 weeks) to submit additional written remarks in

the hearing record. The officer should also notify attendees of the

deadline for the commenting period of the Draft EIS.

Patsy J. Conner,

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 95-1607 Filed 1-23-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3910-01-P

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.