# 71 FR 76082: Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and Assessing the Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions > Federal · Regulations · In force URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-21402 ## Section - **Citation:** 71 FR 76082 - **Heading:** Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and Assessing the Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions - **Jurisdiction:** Federal - **Kind:** Regulations - **Status:** In force - **Text as of:** August 14, 2026 - **Source:** Compiled text - **Location:** Federal Register / Vol. 71 / 71 FR 76082 ## Text ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 6 [EPA-HQ-OECA-2005-0062; FRL-8257-1] RIN 2020-AA42 Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and Assessing the Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is proposing amendments to its procedures for implementing the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). This proposed rule also includes minor, technical amendments to the Agency's procedures for implementing Executive Order 12114, “Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions.” This proposed rule would amend EPA's NEPA implementing procedures by: consolidating and standardizing the procedural provisions and requirements of the Agency's environmental review process under NEPA; clarifying the general procedures associated with categorical exclusions, consolidating the categories of actions subject to categorical exclusion, amending existing and adding new categorical exclusions, and consolidating and amending existing and adding new extraordinary circumstances; consolidating and amending the listing of actions that generally require an environmental impact statement; clarifying the procedural requirements for consideration of applicable environmental review laws and executive orders; and incorporating other proposed revisions consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations (CEQ's Regulations). DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 20, 2007. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection provisions must be received by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on or before January 18, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2005-0062, by one of the following methods: • http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: hargrove.robert@epa.gov tion Act, comments on the information collection provisions must be received by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on or before January 18, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2005-0062, by one of the following methods: • http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: hargrove.robert@epa.gov. • Fax: 202-564-0072, Attention: Robert Hargrove. • Mail: EPA-HQ-OECA-2005-0062, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, Mailcode: 2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. • Hand Delivery: Public Reading Room, Room B102, Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2005-0062. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov , or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment ess Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov , or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e. , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Public Reading Room, Room B102, Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays orm. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Public Reading Room, Room B102, Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OECA Docket is (202) 566-1752. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Hargrove; NEPA Compliance Division; Office of Federal Activities (Mailcode 2252A); Environmental Protection Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 564-7157; fax number: (202) 564-0072; e-mail address: hargrove.robert@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This preamble is organized according to the following outline: I. General Information A. Does This Proposed Rule Apply to Me? B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments II. Introduction A. Statutory authority B. Background C. Exemptions From NEPA for Certain EPA Actions D. EPA's Voluntary NEPA Policy and Procedures III. Purpose and Policy IV. Proposed Changes to the Regulations and Objectives of These Proposed Changes A. Proposed Revision to the Title for EPA's Regulations at Part 6 B. Restructuring and Standardizing EPA's NEPA Implementing Regulations 1. Consolidate and Standardize the Procedural Provisions and Requirements of the Agency's Environmental Review Process Under NEPA 2. Clarify the General Procedures Associated With Categorical Exclusions; Consolidate the Categories of Actions Subject to Categorical Exclusion; Amend Existing and Add New Categorical Exclusions; and Consolidate and Amend Existing and Add New Extraordinary Circumstances 3. Consolidate and Amend the Listing of Actions that Generally Require an Environmental Impact Statement 4 ew Process Under NEPA 2. Clarify the General Procedures Associated With Categorical Exclusions; Consolidate the Categories of Actions Subject to Categorical Exclusion; Amend Existing and Add New Categorical Exclusions; and Consolidate and Amend Existing and Add New Extraordinary Circumstances 3. Consolidate and Amend the Listing of Actions that Generally Require an Environmental Impact Statement 4. Clarify the Procedural Requirements for Consideration of Applicable Environmental Review Laws and Executive Orders 5. Other Proposed Revisions Consistent With the CEQ Regulations C. Proposed amendments to EPA's Procedures for Implementing Executive Order 12114 1. Amendment to Re-Designate the Subpart for EPA's Procedures Implementing Executive Order 12114 2. Amendments to Update Office Names and Titles 3. Amendment to Reference in the Executive Order 12114 Implementing Procedures to EPA's Voluntary NEPA Policy 4. Amendment to Reference in the Executive Order 12114 Implementing Procedures to EPA's NEPA Implementing Procedures 5. Amendments for Correction of Cross-References and Typographical Errors V. Proposed Amended and New Categories of Actions Eligible for Categorical Exclusion; Amended and New Extraordinary Circumstances; and Amended Listing of Actions That Generally Require an Environmental Impact Statement VI. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution and Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations I nts G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution and Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations I. General Information A. Does This Proposed Rule Apply to Me? Those subject to the proposed rule include EPA employees who must comply with NEPA or Executive Order 12114, and certain grant and permit applicants who must submit environmental information documentation to EPA for their proposed projects. EPA's Procedures for Implementing NEPA. As with EPA's current NEPA implementing regulations, compliance with the proposed regulations would be the responsibility of EPA's Responsible Officials. For applicant-proposed actions, certain procedures in the proposed NEPA regulations would require those defined in the proposed regulations as applicants (that is, grant and permit applicants) to provide environmental information for EPA's use in its environmental review process. Currently, EPA's NEPA implementing regulations apply, by subpart, to specific types of EPA proposed actions. For example, Subpart E applies to the award of wastewater treatment construction grants under Title II of the Clean Water Act, and Subpart F applies to EPA's environmental review process for issuance of new source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits ew process. Currently, EPA's NEPA implementing regulations apply, by subpart, to specific types of EPA proposed actions. For example, Subpart E applies to the award of wastewater treatment construction grants under Title II of the Clean Water Act, and Subpart F applies to EPA's environmental review process for issuance of new source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. The proposed regulations would consolidate and standardize the environmental review process applicable to all EPA proposed actions subject to NEPA, including those actions now specifically addressed in the current regulations and other actions subject to NEPA but not specifically addressed in the current regulations (e.g., certain EPA grant awards for special projects identified in the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account authorized by Congress through the Agency's annual Appropriations Act, including grants for the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission/Border Environmental Infrastructure Fund and Colonias grant projects). As with EPA's current regulations, the proposed regulations would supplement and be used in conjunction with the government-wide Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). For additional information of interest to applicants, please see Preamble IV.B.5, “Other proposed revisions consistent with the CEQ Regulations. This section provides further information on proposed revisions that apply to applicants. EPA's Procedures for Implementing Executive Order 12114. As with EPA's current Executive Order 12114 implementing procedures, compliance with these procedures would be the responsibility of EPA's Responsible Officials. As with the current procedures, for applicant-proposed actions, applicants may be required to provide environmental information for EPA's use in its environmental review process . EPA's Procedures for Implementing Executive Order 12114. As with EPA's current Executive Order 12114 implementing procedures, compliance with these procedures would be the responsibility of EPA's Responsible Officials. As with the current procedures, for applicant-proposed actions, applicants may be required to provide environmental information for EPA's use in its environmental review process. EPA's Executive Order 12114 implementing procedures ensure that environmental information is available to the Agency's decision-makers and other appropriate Federal agencies and officials for proposed actions subject to Executive Order 12114. Today's proposed rule also includes minor, technical amendments to the Agency's procedures for implementing Executive Order 12114 (42 U.S.C. 4321, note, E.O. 12114, 44 FR 1979, 3 CFR 1979, Comp., p. 356). EPA actions typically subject to Executive Order 12114 include major EPA actions that affect the environment of a foreign nation or the global commons and may include: major research or demonstration projects, ocean dumping activities carried out under section 102 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. ), and major permitting or licensing of facilities by EPA (such as EPA-issued permits for hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities under section 3005 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6925), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits under section 402 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1342), and prevention of significant deterioration approvals under Part C of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7470 et seq. ). To determine whether your project would be subject to these procedures, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in § 6.101 and Subpart C of the NEPA implementing procedures, and § 6.401 of the Executive Order 12114 implementing procedures in this proposed rule 1342), and prevention of significant deterioration approvals under Part C of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7470 et seq. ). To determine whether your project would be subject to these procedures, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in § 6.101 and Subpart C of the NEPA implementing procedures, and § 6.401 of the Executive Order 12114 implementing procedures in this proposed rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of these procedures to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this Preamble. B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments When submitting comments, remember to: (a) Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number). (b) Follow directions for commenting according to the ADDRESSES section of this Preamble. (c) Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. (d) Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. (e) If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. (f) Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. (g) Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. s and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. (e) If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. (f) Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. (g) Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. (h) Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Introduction A. Statutory Authority The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, establishes the federal government's national policy for protection of the environment. The Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (CEQ Regulations) at 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508 establish procedures implementing this national policy. The CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1505.1) require federal agencies to adopt and, as needed, revise their own NEPA implementing procedures to supplement the CEQ Regulations and to ensure their decision-making processes are consistent with NEPA. Executive Order 12114, “Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions,” (see 46 FR 3364) is the authority and basis for EPA's policy, criteria, and procedures contained in the portion of today's proposed rule entitled “Assessing the Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions.” B. Background The Environmental Protection Agency initially established its NEPA regulations as 40 CFR Part 6 (Part 6), Subparts A through H on April 14, 1975 (see 40 FR 16823). Subpart I was added on January 11, 1977 (see 42 FR 2450). On November 29, 1978, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) promulgated regulations establishing uniform federal procedures for implementing NEPA (see 43 FR 55978). Section 103 of NEPA and the CEQ Regulations require federal agencies to adopt appropriate NEPA procedures to supplement those regulations April 14, 1975 (see 40 FR 16823). Subpart I was added on January 11, 1977 (see 42 FR 2450). On November 29, 1978, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) promulgated regulations establishing uniform federal procedures for implementing NEPA (see 43 FR 55978). Section 103 of NEPA and the CEQ Regulations require federal agencies to adopt appropriate NEPA procedures to supplement those regulations. As a result, EPA amended its NEPA regulations on November 6, 1979, to make them consistent with the CEQ Regulations (see 44 FR 64177). Under the Agency's 1979 Part 6 amendments, Subparts A through D described general NEPA procedures for preparing environmental reviews applicable to all EPA NEPA actions and established certain categorical exclusions. Subpart A contained an overview of EPA's NEPA regulations, including environmental impact statement (EIS) requirements for EPA legislative proposals and requirements for environmental information documents (EIDs) to be submitted to EPA by applicants, grantees, or permitees as required in Subparts E through I. Subpart B described the requirements for the content of an EIS prepared pursuant to Subparts E through I. Subpart C described the requirements for coordination of applicable environmental laws and certain executive orders with the environmental review procedures. It provided a brief recitation of the provisions of those laws or executive orders and EPA implementing procedures. Subpart D described the public information requirements to be undertaken in conjunction with the environmental review requirements under Subparts E through I. Subparts E through I established specific criteria for conducting environmental reviews for particular types of actions and categorical exclusions applicable to those actions of those laws or executive orders and EPA implementing procedures. Subpart D described the public information requirements to be undertaken in conjunction with the environmental review requirements under Subparts E through I. Subparts E through I established specific criteria for conducting environmental reviews for particular types of actions and categorical exclusions applicable to those actions. Specifically, Subpart E established NEPA environmental review procedures for the Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Program of the Clean Water Act; Subpart F for the issuance of new source NPDES permits; Subpart G for research and development program actions; Subpart H for solid waste demonstration projects; and Subpart I for EPA actions for construction of special purpose facilities or facility renovations. EPA's “Statement of Procedures on Floodplain Management and Wetlands Protection,” dated January 5, 1979, was included as Appendix A to clarify the effective date and to emphasize the importance of this Statement of Procedures. In 1981, Subpart J, “Assessing the Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions,” was added as EPA's general policy, criteria, and procedures for implementing Executive Order 12114, “Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions” (see 46 FR 3364). Executive Order 12114 does not impose NEPA compliance requirements on Federal agencies, rather it “furthers the purpose” of NEPA and identifies the documents, including environmental impact statements (EISs) and environmental assessments (EAs), to be used when conducting assessments under Executive Order 12114. In 1982, the Agency revised its Part 6 NEPA regulations by removing CEQ from the consultation process on requests to segment wastewater treatment facility construction grant projects (see 47 FR 9831). In 1983, EPA revised the categorical exclusions and the criteria for not granting an exclusion, and corrected a factual error on the responsibility for preparing a final EA (see 48 FR 1012) 12114. In 1982, the Agency revised its Part 6 NEPA regulations by removing CEQ from the consultation process on requests to segment wastewater treatment facility construction grant projects (see 47 FR 9831). In 1983, EPA revised the categorical exclusions and the criteria for not granting an exclusion, and corrected a factual error on the responsibility for preparing a final EA (see 48 FR 1012). In 1985, the Agency promulgated procedural amendments and minor substantive amendments to its Part 6 NEPA regulations to accommodate changes in EPA's regulations for the construction grants program found at 40 CFR Part 35 (see 50 FR 26310). The modifications in the construction grants program changed the process that EPA grant recipients followed in planning and building wastewater treatment facilities. The amendments to Subpart E and related sections of the EPA NEPA regulations streamlined and clarified the criteria and process for an environmental review and for preparing an EIS, including partitioning of the review process and the public involvement requirements. These amendments also included Office name and technical changes to reflect an Agency reorganization. In 1986, EPA amended its Part 6 NEPA regulations to clarify and streamline procedures for partitioning and re-evaluating environmental reviews, making categorical exclusion determinations, providing for public participation, and producing and distributing environmental review documents; and to make various technical changes including Office name changes due to reorganizations. In 1991, EPA amended Subpart G of its Part 6 NEPA regulations by adding categorical exclusions and a list of projects that normally result in preparation of EAs; revising the criteria used to determine whether preparation of an EIS is required; revising the provision directing coordination, where feasible, with other EPA program reviews; and clarifying the NEPA review process for Office of Research and Development actions (see 56 FR 20541) 6 NEPA regulations by adding categorical exclusions and a list of projects that normally result in preparation of EAs; revising the criteria used to determine whether preparation of an EIS is required; revising the provision directing coordination, where feasible, with other EPA program reviews; and clarifying the NEPA review process for Office of Research and Development actions (see 56 FR 20541). In addition, EPA amended Subpart D by eliminating the requirement for public notice of categorical exclusion determinations for all EPA programs except the Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Program. In 1993, EPA amended its Part 6 NEPA regulations to address the requirement that EPA actions conform to any air quality State implementation plan, and to clarify that air pollution control requirements need to be considered when performing NEPA reviews for wastewater treatment works (see 58 FR 63214). C. Exemptions From NEPA for Certain EPA Actions Certain EPA actions are exempt from the procedural requirements of NEPA, including the CEQ Regulations. Congress has provided specific statutory exemptions for certain EPA actions taken under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and all EPA actions taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Specifically, under CWA Section 511(c)(1), EPA is exempt from preparing EISs for all actions taken under the CWA except for issuance of NPDES permits under CWA Section 402 for “new sources” as defined in Section 306, and for Federal financial assistance provided for assisting construction of publicly owned Further, the courts have exempted certain EPA actions from the procedural requirements of NEPA through the functional equivalence doctrine s exempt from preparing EISs for all actions taken under the CWA except for issuance of NPDES permits under CWA Section 402 for “new sources” as defined in Section 306, and for Federal financial assistance provided for assisting construction of publicly owned Further, the courts have exempted certain EPA actions from the procedural requirements of NEPA through the functional equivalence doctrine. Under the functional equivalence doctrine, courts have found EPA to be exempt from the procedural requirements of NEPA for certain actions under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). The courts reasoned that EPA actions under these statutes are functionally equivalent to the analysis required under NEPA because they are undertaken with full consideration of environmental impacts and opportunities for public involvement. See, e.g., EDF v. EPA , 489 F.2d 1247 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (FIFRA); State of Alabama v. EPA , 911 F. 2d 499 (11th Cir. 1990) (RCRA); Warren County v. North Carolina , 528 F. Supp. 276 (E.D. N.C. 1981) (TSCA); Western Nebraska Resources Council v. U.S. EPA , 943 F.2d 867 (8th Cir. 1991) (SDWA); Maryland v. Train , 415 F. Supp. 116 (D. Md. 1976) (MPRSA). Agency actions exempt from the requirements of NEPA would remain exempt under this proposed rule. If a question arises regarding the applicability of the NEPA requirements to certain proposed actions, the Responsible Official should consult with the NEPA Official and the Office of General Counsel. D. EPA's Voluntary NEPA Policy and Procedures In 1974, EPA Administrator Russell Train determined that the Agency could voluntarily prepare EISs for certain regulatory activities that were exempt from NEPA ion arises regarding the applicability of the NEPA requirements to certain proposed actions, the Responsible Official should consult with the NEPA Official and the Office of General Counsel. D. EPA's Voluntary NEPA Policy and Procedures In 1974, EPA Administrator Russell Train determined that the Agency could voluntarily prepare EISs for certain regulatory activities that were exempt from NEPA. In 1998, Administrator Carol Browner amended this policy to permit the preparation of non-EIS NEPA documents for certain EPA regulatory actions. The Agency's current “Notice of Policy and Procedures for Voluntary Preparation of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents” (see 63 FR 58045) sets out the policy and procedures EPA uses when preparing environmental review documents under the Voluntary NEPA Policy. This proposed rule does not make any changes to the voluntary NEPA policy and procedures. However, the proposed rule can serve as a framework for the preparation of voluntary NEPA documents. III. Purpose and Policy This proposed rule has two purposes. The first purpose is to update and revise EPA's procedures for implementing the procedural requirements of NEPA and the CEQ Regulations by restructuring and standardizing these regulations (see Section IV below). The revised NEPA procedures would continue to be consistent with the declaration of national environmental policy as stated in Title I, Section 101(a) of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4331(a)). Under the proposed NEPA rule, EPA's environmental review process would continue to ensure that, when required, environmental information is available and taken into account before EPA makes a finding of no significant impact or signs a Record of Decision. The NEPA environmental review process would continue to include: identification of alternatives to the proposed action, description of the affected environment, and analyses of the environmental consequences s would continue to ensure that, when required, environmental information is available and taken into account before EPA makes a finding of no significant impact or signs a Record of Decision. The NEPA environmental review process would continue to include: identification of alternatives to the proposed action, description of the affected environment, and analyses of the environmental consequences. For proposed actions subject to NEPA, EPA would continue to prepare environmental impact statements (EISs) for major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. As part of its NEPA environmental review process, EPA also would continue to determine the applicability of other laws and executive orders early in the planning process and incorporate applicable requirements as early in the NEPA review process as possible. EPA's NEPA implementing regulations will be amended in consultation with the Council on Environmental Quality (see 40 CFR 1507.3(a)). The second purpose of today's proposed rule is to make minor, technical amendments to Subpart D, “Assessing the Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions,” which contains the Agency's procedures for implementing Executive Order 12114, “Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions.” The scope of this portion of the proposed regulations is limited to these minor, technical changes. These minor, technical changes are described in the Preamble in Section IV.C. and include amendments to: Re-designate the subpart for EPA's procedures implementing Executive Order 12114; update office names and titles and the references to EPA's Voluntary NEPA Policy and NEPA implementing procedures; and correct cross-references and typographical errors. IV. Proposed Changes to the Regulations and Objectives of These Proposed Changes A d in the Preamble in Section IV.C. and include amendments to: Re-designate the subpart for EPA's procedures implementing Executive Order 12114; update office names and titles and the references to EPA's Voluntary NEPA Policy and NEPA implementing procedures; and correct cross-references and typographical errors. IV. Proposed Changes to the Regulations and Objectives of These Proposed Changes A. Proposed Revision to the Title for EPA's Regulations at Part 6 EPA proposes to retitle its regulations at Part 6 to clarify that the proposed rule includes two sets of Agency procedures: the Agency's procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act; and the Agency's procedures for implementing Executive Order 12114, “Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions.” Both sets of implementing procedures are currently, and will remain, in Part 6. However, EPA believes the proposed amended title will clarify that the procedures implementing Executive Order 12114 are not based on NEPA authority and do not impose NEPA compliance requirements on EPA. B. Restructuring and Standardizing EPA's NEPA Implementing Regulations Restructuring and standardizing EPA's NEPA implementing procedures will clarify that the regulations apply to all proposed actions that are subject both to EPA's control and responsibility and NEPA, including actions not specifically addressed in the current regulations (e.g., certain grants awarded for special projects identified in the STAG account authorized through the Agency's annual Appropriations Act). The proposed revisions also take into account the environmental review exemptions to NEPA established by Congress and the courts ubject both to EPA's control and responsibility and NEPA, including actions not specifically addressed in the current regulations (e.g., certain grants awarded for special projects identified in the STAG account authorized through the Agency's annual Appropriations Act). The proposed revisions also take into account the environmental review exemptions to NEPA established by Congress and the courts. This proposed rule would restructure and amend EPA's NEPA implementing regulations in order to: (1) Consolidate and standardize the procedural provisions and requirements of the Agency's environmental review process under NEPA; (2) clarify the general procedures associated with categorical exclusions, consolidate the categories of actions subject to categorical exclusion, amend existing and add new categorical exclusions, and consolidate and amend existing and add new extraordinary circumstances; (3) consolidate and amend the listing of actions that generally require an EIS; (4) clarify the procedural requirements for consideration of applicable environmental review laws and executive orders; and (5) incorporate other proposed revisions consistent with the CEQ Regulations. Preamble sections IV.B.1 through 5 summarize the objectives of these proposed changes. 1. Consolidate and Standardize the Procedural Provisions and Requirements of the Agency's Environmental Review Process Under NEPA Currently, as discussed in Section II above, EPA's NEPA implementing regulations apply, by subpart, to specific actions. The proposed regulations would consolidate the definitions and environmental review procedures in a single set of definitions and environmental review procedures applicable to all EPA proposed actions subject to NEPA. The proposed regulations also would consolidate the notification and public participation procedures that apply to all EPA proposed actions subject to NEPA. The proposed regulations no longer require a public meeting or hearing as part of the NEPA process l review procedures in a single set of definitions and environmental review procedures applicable to all EPA proposed actions subject to NEPA. The proposed regulations also would consolidate the notification and public participation procedures that apply to all EPA proposed actions subject to NEPA. The proposed regulations no longer require a public meeting or hearing as part of the NEPA process. However, consistent with the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1506.6(c)), the Agency will hold meetings and/or hearings when appropriate or in accordance with statutory requirements. This does not diminish the Agency's commitment to NEPA's requirement for full public disclosure. The proposed regulations also state the conditions for notification of and consultation with state and local governments, and federally-recognized Indian tribes (tribes) and for public participation. 2. Clarify the General Procedures Associated With Categorical Exclusions; Consolidate the Categories of Actions Subject to Categorical Exclusion; Amend Existing and Add New Categorical Exclusions; and Consolidate and Amend Existing and Add New Extraordinary Circumstances Currently, EPA's NEPA implementing regulations include general and, by subpart, action-specific categorical exclusions and extraordinary circumstances. The proposed regulations would consolidate the categorical exclusions and extraordinary circumstances in a single location. Thus, the procedures for determining if a proposed action fits within a categorical exclusion or involves any extraordinary circumstances would be applicable to all EPA actions subject to NEPA. The proposed regulations also propose amending existing and adding new categories of actions for categorical exclusion as discussed in Section V below, Proposed Amended and New Categories of Actions Eligible for Categorical Exclusion; Amended and New Extraordinary Circumstances; and Amended Listing of Actions that Generally Require an Environmental Impact Statement. 3 actions subject to NEPA. The proposed regulations also propose amending existing and adding new categories of actions for categorical exclusion as discussed in Section V below, Proposed Amended and New Categories of Actions Eligible for Categorical Exclusion; Amended and New Extraordinary Circumstances; and Amended Listing of Actions that Generally Require an Environmental Impact Statement. 3. Consolidate and Amend the Listing of Actions That Generally Require an Environmental Impact Statement Currently, some subparts of EPA's NEPA implementing regulations list proposed actions that generally require EISs, and one also lists proposed actions that generally require EAs. The proposed regulations would consolidate and amend the criteria for actions that generally require EISs. These criteria for actions that generally require EISs in the proposed regulations would be applicable to all EPA actions subject to NEPA. 4. Clarify the Procedural Requirements for Consideration of Applicable Environmental Review Laws and Executive Orders Currently, Subpart C of EPA's NEPA implementing regulations focuses on integrating the requirements of applicable environmental laws and executive orders with environmental review requirements independent of NEPA with the Agency's NEPA environmental review procedures. Subpart C also provides a brief outline of the provisions of certain environmental laws and executive orders and EPA implementing procedures, including but not limited to: The National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq. ); the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 469 et seq. ); Executive Order 11593, “Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment;” the Historic Sites Act (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq. ); Executive Order 11990, “Protection of Wetlands;” Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management;” the Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq. ); the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq. ); the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274 et seq Executive Order 11593, “Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment;” the Historic Sites Act (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq. ); Executive Order 11990, “Protection of Wetlands;” Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management;” the Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq. ); the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq. ); the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274 et seq. ); the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ); the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. et seq. ); the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ); and air quality conformity pursuant to the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7476(c) and 42 U.S.C. 7616). Appendix A provides EPA's “Statement of Procedures on Floodplain Management and Wetlands Protection.” The proposed NEPA regulations would remove the outlines and Appendix A, and replace them with the general procedural requirement to determine, to the fullest extent possible, the applicability of other environmental laws and executive orders early in the planning process, and to incorporate applicable requirements as early in the NEPA review process as possible. This general procedural requirement would be applicable to all EPA actions subject to NEPA. This revision also would eliminate the need to amend the regulations whenever the laws and executive orders change. Moreover, today, the environmental review laws, regulations, and executive orders are available through the Internet (for example, many executive orders are linked through CEQ's Web site on NEPAnet at: http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/executiveorders.htm ). Guidance documents have been issued by the responsible oversight agencies, CEQ, and EPA for many of these including those frequently addressed in a NEPA review. (For example, see: CEQ guidance documents available at: http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/guidance.html; and EPA guidance such as “Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses,” EPA, April 1998.) 5 nce documents have been issued by the responsible oversight agencies, CEQ, and EPA for many of these including those frequently addressed in a NEPA review. (For example, see: CEQ guidance documents available at: http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/guidance.html; and EPA guidance such as “Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses,” EPA, April 1998.) 5. Other Proposed Revisions Consistent With the CEQ Regulations Consolidate and standardize the definitions in the existing regulations. The proposed NEPA implementing regulations would consolidate and standardize the definitions in EPA's current NEPA regulations, as well as adding new definitions. Currently, EPA's NEPA implementing regulations apply, by subpart, to specific actions. The proposed regulations would consolidate the definitions in a single set of definitions applicable to all EPA actions subject to NEPA. For example, the proposed NEPA rule defines the term “action,” and replaces the terms “grantee,” “applicant” and “permit applicant” with the single defined term “applicant.” The current regulations define and list by title the specific EPA officials responsible for the various program and action-specific actions identified by subpart. In the proposed rule, the Responsible Official would be defined simply and without title as the EPA official responsible for compliance with NEPA for individual actions thereby precluding the need for technical change to the regulations whenever there is an Agency reorganization and/or change to the title of an organizational unit or management position. Generally, the Responsible Official is an Assistant Administrator or a Regional Administrator, and the NEPA Official is the EPA official responsible for overall review of EPA's NEPA compliance (currently the Director of the Office of Federal Activities within Delegation of responsibilities re is an Agency reorganization and/or change to the title of an organizational unit or management position. Generally, the Responsible Official is an Assistant Administrator or a Regional Administrator, and the NEPA Official is the EPA official responsible for overall review of EPA's NEPA compliance (currently the Director of the Office of Federal Activities within Delegation of responsibilities. Currently, Subpart G of EPA's NEPA implementing regulations provides for delegation of responsibilities for carrying out the environmental review process by EPA's Office of Research and Development; other subparts are silent regarding delegation of responsibilities. In order to clarify and standardize the regulations, the proposed NEPA rule would standardize the delegation of responsibilities by stating that the NEPA-related responsibilities may be delegated to a level no lower than the Branch Chief or equivalent organizational level. Clarify the general requirements for an environmental assessment. Consistent with the CEQ Regulations at §§ 1501.3 and 1508.9, and considering the information contained in “The NEPA Task Force Report to the Council on Environmental Quality, Modernizing NEPA Implementation” (September 2003), the proposed NEPA regulations would include specific elements that generally must be addressed in an EA such as the need for the proposed action, the alternatives considered, description of the affected environment, and the environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternatives. Consolidate and standardize the procedures that apply to applicants. Currently, EPA's NEPA implementing regulations include, by subpart, procedures applicable to certain grantees and new source NPDES permit applicants. These procedures require those grantees and permit applicants (together referred to as applicants) to submit information to the Responsible Official for use in EPA's environmental review process nd standardize the procedures that apply to applicants. Currently, EPA's NEPA implementing regulations include, by subpart, procedures applicable to certain grantees and new source NPDES permit applicants. These procedures require those grantees and permit applicants (together referred to as applicants) to submit information to the Responsible Official for use in EPA's environmental review process. The proposed NEPA regulations would consolidate and standardize these procedures in Subpart C, “Requirements for Environmental Information Documents and Third-Party Agreements.” These procedures would be applicable to all applicant-proposed actions subject to NEPA. Compliance with the proposed NEPA regulations would be the responsibility of the Responsible Official. The proposed NEPA regulations require the applicant to submit an environmental information document (EID) unless the action is categorically excluded or the applicant prepares and submits a draft EA and supporting documents. As appropriate and according to the proposed procedures in Subpart C, the applicant would be able to submit information to the Responsible Official regarding the applicability of a categorical exclusion to the applicant's pending action. The Responsible Official would notify the applicant if the Responsible Official determines that the action is categorically excluded; if EPA needs additional information to support the application of a categorical exclusion; or if the submitted information does not support the application of a categorical exclusion and an EA or an EIS and supporting documents would be required for the project. The Responsible Official also would notify the applicant if an EID would not be required. Unless so notified or unless the applicant and Responsible Official implement a third-party agreement, the applicant, in consultation with the Responsible Official, would prepare an EID that is of sufficient scope to enable the Responsible Official to prepare an EA or, if necessary, an EIS. C r the project. The Responsible Official also would notify the applicant if an EID would not be required. Unless so notified or unless the applicant and Responsible Official implement a third-party agreement, the applicant, in consultation with the Responsible Official, would prepare an EID that is of sufficient scope to enable the Responsible Official to prepare an EA or, if necessary, an EIS. C. Proposed Amendments to EPA's Procedures for Implementing Executive Order 12114 Today's proposed rule also includes minor, technical amendments to the Agency's procedures for implementing Executive Order 12114, “Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions,” included in EPA's proposed regulations in Subpart D, “Assessing the Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions.” These proposed amendments are described below. For this subpart, the scope of the proposal is limited to these minor, technical amendments and EPA is requesting comments only on these amendments. 1. Amendment to Re-Designate the Subpart for EPA's Procedures Implementing Executive Order 12114 Currently, EPA's procedures implementing Executive Order 12114 are in Part 6 at Subpart J. As part of the overall restructuring of Part 6, these procedures are proposed to be re-designated as Subpart D. The sections in this subpart are proposed to be re-numbered accordingly; § 6.1001 would become § 6.400, § 6.1002 would become § 6.401, § 6.1003 would become § 6.402, § 6.1004 would become § 6.403, § 6.1005 would become § 6.404, § 6.1006 would become § 6.405, and § 6.1007 would become § 6.406, respectively and in accordance with Federal Register numbering, in the proposed rule. 2. Amendments To Update Office Names and Titles In 1981 when Subpart J was included in Part 6, the Office of Environmental Review (OER) housed the EPA official responsible for overall review of EPA's NEPA compliance as required by 40 CFR 1507.2(a). Today, this responsibility resides in the Office of Federal Activities (OFA) d in accordance with Federal Register numbering, in the proposed rule. 2. Amendments To Update Office Names and Titles In 1981 when Subpart J was included in Part 6, the Office of Environmental Review (OER) housed the EPA official responsible for overall review of EPA's NEPA compliance as required by 40 CFR 1507.2(a). Today, this responsibility resides in the Office of Federal Activities (OFA). The proposed rule contains amendments to update this information. Likewise, the proposed rule also contains amendments to update other office names and titles. The following proposed office name and title amendments are identified according to the paragraph numbers in the proposed rule; e.g. , § 6.401(a)(5) in the proposed rule corresponds to § 6.1002(a)(5) in the current rule, § 6.403(b)(1) in the proposed rule corresponds to § 6.1004(b)(1) in the current rule, § 6.405 in the proposed rule corresponds to § 6.1006 in the current rule, and § 6.406 in the proposed rule corresponds to § 6.1007 in the current rule. In § 6.401(a)(5), “OER” would be amended to “OFA”. In § 6.403(b)(1), “The Assistant Administrator for Water and Waste Management” would be amended to “The Assistant Administrator for Water”. In § 6.405, “the Director, Office of Environmental Review (OER)” would be amended to “the Director, Office of Federal Activities (OFA)”; “Director Office of International Activities (OIA)” would be amended to “Assistant Administrator, Office of International Affairs (OIA)”; “Director, OER” would be amended to “Director, OFA”; and “Director, OIA” would be amended to “Assistant Administrator, OIA”. In § 6.406, paragraphs (a) through (c), “OER” would be amended to “OFA”. 3. Amendment to Reference in the Executive Order 12114 Implementing Procedures to EPA's Voluntary NEPA Policy Currently, EPA's procedures for implementing Executive Order 12114 reference EPA's Voluntary EIS Policy dated October 21, 1974. The Agency revised this policy in 1998 be amended to “Assistant Administrator, OIA”. In § 6.406, paragraphs (a) through (c), “OER” would be amended to “OFA”. 3. Amendment to Reference in the Executive Order 12114 Implementing Procedures to EPA's Voluntary NEPA Policy Currently, EPA's procedures for implementing Executive Order 12114 reference EPA's Voluntary EIS Policy dated October 21, 1974. The Agency revised this policy in 1998. For this reason and to clarify the applicability of these procedures to ocean dumping activities in the global commons under section 102(a) of the MPRSA, in § 6.403(b)(1), the sentences: “For ocean dumping site designations prescribed pursuant to section 102(c) of the MPRSA and 40 CFR part 228, EPA shall prepare an environmental impact statement consistent with the requirements of EPA's Procedures for the Voluntary Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements dated October 21, 1974 (see 30 FR 37419). Also EPA shall prepare an environmental impact statement for the establishment or revision of criteria under section 102(a) of MPRSA.” would be amended to: “For ocean dumping site designations prescribed pursuant to section 102(c) of the MPRSA and 40 CFR part 228, and for the establishment or revision of criteria under section e.g. , § 6.403(b)(1) in the proposed rule corresponds to § 6.1004(b)(1) in the current rule. 4. Amendment to Reference in the Executive Order 12114 Implementing Procedures to EPA's NEPA Implementing Procedures Currently, EPA's procedures for implementing Executive Order 12114 reference § 6.506 of EPA's current NEPA implementing procedures. Because EPA proposes to restructure its NEPA implementing procedures, in § 6.403(d), “40 CFR 6.506 details” would be amended to “40 CFR part 6, subparts A through C, detail”. This proposed amendment is identified according to the paragraph number in the proposed rule; e.g., § 6.403(d) in the proposed rule corresponds to § 6.1004(d) in the current rule. 5 A's current NEPA implementing procedures. Because EPA proposes to restructure its NEPA implementing procedures, in § 6.403(d), “40 CFR 6.506 details” would be amended to “40 CFR part 6, subparts A through C, detail”. This proposed amendment is identified according to the paragraph number in the proposed rule; e.g., § 6.403(d) in the proposed rule corresponds to § 6.1004(d) in the current rule. 5. Amendments for Correction of Cross-References and Typographical Errors In § 6.400(a), “the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act” would be amended to “the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act”. In § 6.401(a), “of by EPA as set forth below:” would be amended to “of EPA as follows:”. In § 6.401(a)(5), “(see § 6.1007(c)).” would be amended to “(see § 6.406(c)).” In § 6.401, “(b) [Reserved].” would be added to meet the Federal Register requirement for a second paragraph in this section. In § 6.403(d), “or water quality agreements” would be amended to “of water quality agreements” in the sentence, “Where water quality impacts identified in a facility plan are the subject of water quality agreements with Canada or Mexico, nothing in these regulations shall impose on the facility planning process coordination and consultation requirements in addition to those required by such agreements.” These proposed amendments are identified according to the paragraph numbers in the proposed rule; e.g., § 6.400(a) in the proposed rule corresponds to § 6.1001(a) in the current rule, § 6.401(a) in the proposed rule corresponds to § 6.1002(a) in the current rule, § 6.401(a)(5) in the proposed rule corresponds to § 6.1002(a)(5) in the current rule, § 6.401 in the proposed rule corresponds to § 6.1002 in the current rule, and § 6.403(d) in the proposed rule corresponds to § 6.1004(d) in the current rule. V (a) in the proposed rule corresponds to § 6.1001(a) in the current rule, § 6.401(a) in the proposed rule corresponds to § 6.1002(a) in the current rule, § 6.401(a)(5) in the proposed rule corresponds to § 6.1002(a)(5) in the current rule, § 6.401 in the proposed rule corresponds to § 6.1002 in the current rule, and § 6.403(d) in the proposed rule corresponds to § 6.1004(d) in the current rule. V. Proposed Amended and New Categories of Actions Eligible for Categorical Exclusion; Amended and New Extraordinary Circumstances; and Amended Listing of Actions That Generally Require an Environmental Impact Statement The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is proposing amendments to its procedures for implementing the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The proposed rule also includes minor, technical amendments to the Agency's procedures for implementing Executive Order 12114, “Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions.” Pursuant to CEQ's Regulations that are applicable to all Federal agencies for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA, Federal agencies must, to the fullest extent possible, reduce paperwork and accumulation of extraneous background data and emphasize real environmental issues and alternatives. (40 CFR 1500.2(b)) CEQ's Regulations (40 CFR 1507.3(b)(2)(ii)) provide that agencies are to adopt their own implementing procedures to supplement CEQ's NEPA implementing procedures, including specific criteria for and identification of classes of action which normally do not require either an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment (e.g., categorical exclusions (see 40 CFR 1508.4)). As part of the amendments to its NEPA implementing regulations, the Agency is proposing to amend existing and add new categories of actions eligible for categorical exclusion cluding specific criteria for and identification of classes of action which normally do not require either an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment (e.g., categorical exclusions (see 40 CFR 1508.4)). As part of the amendments to its NEPA implementing regulations, the Agency is proposing to amend existing and add new categories of actions eligible for categorical exclusion. Consistent with the CEQ Regulations at § 1508.4, the proposed rule would define “categorical exclusion” to mean “a category of actions that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment * * *” and have been found by EPA to have no such effect. The proposed rule would require that to find that a proposed action is categorically excluded, EPA's Responsible Official must determine that the proposed action fits within a categorical exclusion listed in the proposed regulations, and the proposed action does not involve any extraordinary circumstances. Some of EPA's proposed new categorical exclusions are essentially the same as categorical exclusions of other Federal agencies; others are more specific to EPA. Consistent with the CEQ Regulations at § 1508.4, the proposed rule would define “extraordinary circumstances” to mean “those circumstances * * * that may cause a significant environmental effect such that an action that otherwise meets the requirements of a categorical exclusion may not be categorically excluded.” Like its current NEPA implementing regulations, EPA's proposed rule includes a list of extraordinary circumstances. Some are generally the same as those in its current NEPA implementing regulations, some are new, and some are proposed amendments based on current extraordinary circumstances, the criteria for actions that generally require environmental impact statements (EISs), and NEPA's policy direction to emphasize real environmental issues and alternatives. The extraordinary circumstances would be consolidated in the proposed rule same as those in its current NEPA implementing regulations, some are new, and some are proposed amendments based on current extraordinary circumstances, the criteria for actions that generally require environmental impact statements (EISs), and NEPA's policy direction to emphasize real environmental issues and alternatives. The extraordinary circumstances would be consolidated in the proposed rule. As required by CEQ's Regulations, the proposed rule also includes a consolidated listing of actions that generally require an EIS (see 40 CFR 1507.3(b)(2)(i)). The proposed amendments to EPA's NEPA implementing regulations include: (1) Consolidating and standardizing the procedural provisions and requirements of the Agency's environmental review process under NEPA; (2) clarifying the general procedures associated with categorical exclusions, consolidating the categories of actions subject to categorical exclusion, amending existing and adding new categorical exclusions, and consolidating and amending existing and adding new extraordinary circumstances; (3) consolidating and amending the listing of actions that generally require environmental impact statements; (4) clarifying the procedural requirements for consideration of applicable environmental review laws and executive orders; and (5) incorporating other proposed revisions consistent with CEQ's Regulations. The general reasons for the amended and new categorical exclusions, extraordinary circumstances, and criteria for actions that generally require an EIS are as follows: (1) Consolidation and standardization of the procedural provisions and requirements of the Agency's environmental review process under NEPA The proposed regulations would consolidate and standardize the environmental review process applicable to all EPA actions subject to NEPA, including those actions now specifically addressed in the current regulations and other actions subject to follows: (1) Consolidation and standardization of the procedural provisions and requirements of the Agency's environmental review process under NEPA The proposed regulations would consolidate and standardize the environmental review process applicable to all EPA actions subject to NEPA, including those actions now specifically addressed in the current regulations and other actions subject to (2) Clarify the general procedures associated with categorical exclusions, consolidate the categories of actions subject to categorical exclusion, amend existing and add new categorical exclusions, and consolidate and amend existing and add new extraordinary circumstances Currently, EPA's NEPA implementing regulations include general and, by subpart, program-specific categorical exclusions and extraordinary circumstances. The proposed regulations would consolidate the categorical exclusions and extraordinary circumstances in a single location. Thus, the procedures for determining if a proposed action fits within a categorical exclusion or involves any extraordinary circumstances would be the same for all EPA actions subject to NEPA. (3) Consolidate and amend the listing of actions that generally require an environmental impact statement Currently, some subparts of EPA's NEPA implementing regulations list actions that generally require EISs, and one also lists specific actions that generally require EAs. The proposed regulations would consolidate and amend the criteria for actions that generally require EISs. These criteria for actions that generally require EISs in the proposed regulations would be applicable to all EPA actions subject to NEPA. EPA's NEPA regulations apply to the actions and decisions of EPA that are subject to NEPA's procedural requirements in order to ensure that environmental information is available to the Agency's decision-makers and the public before decisions are made and before actions are taken tions that generally require EISs in the proposed regulations would be applicable to all EPA actions subject to NEPA. EPA's NEPA regulations apply to the actions and decisions of EPA that are subject to NEPA's procedural requirements in order to ensure that environmental information is available to the Agency's decision-makers and the public before decisions are made and before actions are taken. This includes actions such as the award of wastewater treatment construction grants under Title II of the Clean Water Act, EPA's issuance of new source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, certain research and development projects, EPA actions involving renovations at or new construction of EPA facilities, and certain grants awarded for special projects identified in the STAG account authorized by Congress through the Agency's annual Appropriations Act. EPA actions subject to NEPA that are based on applicant proposals may include any of these except EPA actions for construction of special purpose facilities or facility renovations. As with EPA's current NEPA implementing regulations, compliance with the proposed NEPA regulations would be the responsibility of EPA's Responsible Officials and certain grant or permit applicants who must submit environmental information documentation to EPA for their proposed projects. Currently, EPA's NEPA implementing regulations apply, by subpart, to specific actions. For example, Subpart E applies to the award of wastewater treatment construction grants under Title II of the Clean Water Act, and Subpart F applies to EPA's environmental review process for issuance of new source NPDES permits submit environmental information documentation to EPA for their proposed projects. Currently, EPA's NEPA implementing regulations apply, by subpart, to specific actions. For example, Subpart E applies to the award of wastewater treatment construction grants under Title II of the Clean Water Act, and Subpart F applies to EPA's environmental review process for issuance of new source NPDES permits. The proposed regulations would consolidate and standardize the environmental review process applicable to all EPA actions subject to NEPA, including those actions now specifically addressed in the current regulations and other actions subject to NEPA but not specifically addressed in the current regulations (e.g., certain grants awarded for special projects identified in the STAG account.) As with EPA's current regulations, the proposed regulations would supplement and be used in conjunction with the CEQ Regulations. Certain EPA actions are exempt from the procedural requirements of NEPA and would remain exempt under the proposed rule. EPA is proposing to consolidate and standardize the environmental review process applicable to all EPA actions subject to NEPA. As part of this process, EPA is consolidating the categories of actions eligible for categorical exclusion, and amending existing and adding new categorical exclusions. CEQ's Regulations state that Federal agencies must implement NEPA procedures, in part, “to reduce paperwork and the accumulation of extraneous background data; and to emphasize real environmental issues and alternatives.” (40 CFR 1500.2(b)) EPA believes that the proposed amended and identification of new categorical exclusions meets the intent of this NEPA policy as paperwork is reduced or eliminated for EPA's Responsible Officials and applicants. Likewise, EPA's attention will be focused on proposed actions with real environmental issues and the associated analysis of alternatives, including mitigation measures, that will eliminate or reduce the project's environmental impacts entification of new categorical exclusions meets the intent of this NEPA policy as paperwork is reduced or eliminated for EPA's Responsible Officials and applicants. Likewise, EPA's attention will be focused on proposed actions with real environmental issues and the associated analysis of alternatives, including mitigation measures, that will eliminate or reduce the project's environmental impacts. The NEPA Task Force Report to the Council on Environmental Quality notes that federal agency administrative records prepared to support categorical exclusions may include documentation of: Professional staff and expert opinions; research study results; past NEPA action records; and similar categorical exclusion actions by other agencies. [“Modernizing NEPA Implementation, Chapter 5, Categorical Exclusions,” The NEPA Task Force Report to the Council on Environmental Quality, September 2003] Categorical Exclusions. EPA's proposed rule identifies 15 categories of action eligible for categorical exclusion included in two listings. The first five proposed categorical exclusions, listed in the proposed rule at § 6.204(a)(1)(i) through (v), are more likely to involve extraordinary circumstances and require the EPA Responsible Official to document a determination that a categorical exclusion applies. It is also EPA's opinion that these actions generally do not pose the potential for environmental impacts, and that confirmation there are no extraordinary circumstances would satisfy a determination that the use of a CE is appropriate. The first three of these are substantially the same as, or similar to, categorical exclusions in EPA's current NEPA implementing regulations with amendments to clarify their applicability to all EPA actions subject to NEPA and to clarify the intended applicability of the categorical exclusion. Proposed categorical exclusion (i) is similar to other Federal agencies' categorical exclusions (in general terms, minor rehabilitation) bstantially the same as, or similar to, categorical exclusions in EPA's current NEPA implementing regulations with amendments to clarify their applicability to all EPA actions subject to NEPA and to clarify the intended applicability of the categorical exclusion. Proposed categorical exclusion (i) is similar to other Federal agencies' categorical exclusions (in general terms, minor rehabilitation). Proposed categorical exclusions (ii) and (iii) are specific to EPA and are similar to current EPA categorical exclusions; they have been documented as proposed categorical exclusions through past NEPA action records. Categorical exclusion (iv) is a proposed new categorical exclusion based on EPA's past NEPA action records. Categorical exclusion (v) is a proposed new categorical exclusion based on EPA's view that these actions for award of funds are not likely to have the potential for environmental impacts because the project for which the grant is being awarded was completed prior to the date the appropriation was enacted. However, EPA has discretion to award these grants, so they should be screened to determine whether there may be extraordinary circumstances associated with the completed project that should be addressed by conducting a NEPA review (e.g., avoidance or mitigation of potential impacts). It is EPA's view that the next 10 listed categorical exclusions are generally administrative in nature, do not generally involve extraordinary EPA's “Supporting Statement for Amended and New Categorical Exclusions, Extraordinary Circumstances, and Criteria for Actions that Generally Require EISs under 40 CFR Part 6: ‘Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and Assessing the Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions’ ” is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking at www.regulations.gov and provides specific reasons for the proposed amended and new categorical exclusions included in EPA's proposed rule d Criteria for Actions that Generally Require EISs under 40 CFR Part 6: ‘Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and Assessing the Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions’ ” is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking at www.regulations.gov and provides specific reasons for the proposed amended and new categorical exclusions included in EPA's proposed rule. EPA's documentation includes: references to EPA projects documented with environmental assessments and findings of no significant impact; reference to other Federal agencies with similar provisions for categorical exclusions; and statements of EPA's opinion. Extraordinary Circumstances. EPA's proposed rule identifies 10 extraordinary circumstances in the proposed rule at § 6.204(b)(1) through (10). Four of the proposed extraordinary circumstances are substantially the same as the eight in EPA's current regulations, and one of the proposed new extraordinary circumstances combines the elements of two in the current regulations. This proposed rule updates and amends the current extraordinary circumstances to clarify the conditions for their applicability, and consolidates all of the extraordinary circumstances into a single listing that would be applicable to all EPA actions subject to NEPA. EPA is also proposing six new extraordinary circumstances based on NEPA's policy direction to emphasize real environmental issues and alternatives and on consideration of EPA's proposed criteria for actions that generally require an EIS. EPA believes there is a relationship between the extraordinary circumstances and the criteria for actions that generally require EISs. EPA notes, however, that extraordinary circumstances are used to help the Responsible Official determine whether, or not, a categorical exclusion applies to the proposed action, and that the criteria for actions that generally require an EIS are criteria that generally, but not always, require an EIS between the extraordinary circumstances and the criteria for actions that generally require EISs. EPA notes, however, that extraordinary circumstances are used to help the Responsible Official determine whether, or not, a categorical exclusion applies to the proposed action, and that the criteria for actions that generally require an EIS are criteria that generally, but not always, require an EIS. EPA's “Supporting Statement for Amended and New Categorical Exclusions, Extraordinary Circumstances, and Criteria for Actions that Generally Require EISs under 40 CFR Part 6: ‘Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and Assessing the Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions’ ” is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking at www.regulations.gov and provides specific reasons for the amended and new extraordinary circumstances included in the proposed rule. In summary, the intent is to standardize the essential concepts and combine the variously stated criteria into a consolidated set of extraordinary circumstances applicable to all EPA actions subject to NEPA. The proposed extraordinary circumstances are not intended to be a listing of requirements for preparing EISs. Rather, they are to be used to determine whether a categorical exclusion applies to the action. If not, the EPA Responsible Official may prepare an environmental assessment to determine whether a finding of no significant impact, or an EIS, is the appropriate NEPA document for the project, or the Responsible Official proceeds directly with preparing an EIS. Criteria for Actions that Generally Require EISs. EPA's proposed rule identifies 11 criteria for actions that generally require an EIS. These proposed criteria are substantially the same as, or similar to, 16 of the 17 criteria in EPA's current NEPA implementing regulations EIS, is the appropriate NEPA document for the project, or the Responsible Official proceeds directly with preparing an EIS. Criteria for Actions that Generally Require EISs. EPA's proposed rule identifies 11 criteria for actions that generally require an EIS. These proposed criteria are substantially the same as, or similar to, 16 of the 17 criteria in EPA's current NEPA implementing regulations. The criterion in EPA's current rule at § 6.509(b), ‘the project is highly controversial,’ is not included in the proposed criteria for actions that generally require EISs because EPA believes that the potential environmental impacts of such a project may not necessarily rise to the level of significance such that an EIS is generally required; e.g., an environmental assessment with provisions for mitigation could be the appropriate level of environmental review for the action. Further, as stated in the current rule, there is no direct tie to environmental impacts. Rather, EPA's proposed rule includes an extraordinary circumstance at § 6.204(b)(8) that addresses this concept, including the potential for environmental impact. EPA's “Supporting Statement for Amended and New Categorical Exclusions, Extraordinary Circumstances, and Criteria for Actions that Generally Require EISs under 40 CFR Part 6: ‘Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and Assessing the Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions’ ” is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking at www.regulations.gov and provides specific reasons for the amended criteria for actions that generally require EISs included in the proposed rule. In summary, the intent is to standardize the essential concepts and combine the variously stated criteria into a consolidated set of criteria for actions that generally require EISs that are applicable to all EPA actions subject to NEPA. The proposed criteria are not intended to be a listing of requirements for preparing EISs in all cases that generally require EISs included in the proposed rule. In summary, the intent is to standardize the essential concepts and combine the variously stated criteria into a consolidated set of criteria for actions that generally require EISs that are applicable to all EPA actions subject to NEPA. The proposed criteria are not intended to be a listing of requirements for preparing EISs in all cases. This is because not all actions examined under the criteria rise to the level of significance such that EISs are required (e.g., an environmental assessment with provisions for mitigation could be the appropriate level of environmental review for an action). In keeping with the public comment process for this proposed rulemaking, EPA is interested in the public's comments on these proposed amended and new categorical exclusions, extraordinary circumstances, and criteria for actions that generally require an EIS. VI. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a “significant regulatory action.” Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. A copy of the analysis is available in the docket for this action and the analysis is briefly summarized here. The total annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated at 48,147 hours and B. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements of this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 2243.02 this collection of information is estimated at 48,147 hours and B. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements of this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 2243.02. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is proposing to amend its procedures for implementing the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Today's proposed rule also includes minor, technical amendments to the Agency's procedures for implementing Executive Order 12114, “Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions.” EPA is collecting information from certain applicants as part of the process of complying with either NEPA or Executive Order 12114. EPA's Executive Order 12114 procedures further the purpose of NEPA and provide that EPA may be guided by these procedures to the extent they are applicable. Therefore, when EPA conducts an environmental assessment pursuant to its Executive Order 12114 procedures, the Agency generally follows its NEPA procedures. For this ICR, applicant-proposed projects subject to either NEPA or Executive Order 12114 (and that are not addressed in other EPA programs' ICRs), are addressed through the NEPA assessment process. Those subject to the proposed rule include EPA employees who must comply with NEPA and certain grant and permit applicants who must submit environmental information to EPA for their proposed projects. The EPA Responsible Official is responsible for the environmental review process, including any categorical exclusion determination or the scope, accuracy, and contents of a final environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) and any associated documents. The applicant contributes by submitting environmental information to EPA as part of the environmental review process ts. The EPA Responsible Official is responsible for the environmental review process, including any categorical exclusion determination or the scope, accuracy, and contents of a final environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) and any associated documents. The applicant contributes by submitting environmental information to EPA as part of the environmental review process. The information collected from grant or permit applicants is one-time only on a per-project basis for EPA actions subject to NEPA that are based on applicant proposals. Grantees (primarily grants for special projects identified in EPA's State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account) or permit applicants (for new source NPDES permits issued by EPA) are required to provide environmental information to EPA as part of the environmental review process unless the EPA Responsible Official decides to prepare the NEPA documents without assistance from the applicant. If the applicant cannot afford to provide the required environmental information to EPA, then EPA would undertake the environmental review without input from the applicant. Further, grantees may be grant-eligible for certain costs associated with providing environmental information to EPA; permit applicants are not eligible for EPA financial assistance. The NEPA review for a project may result in a categorical exclusion (CE), or an EA documented with a finding of no significant impact (EA/FONSI), or an EIS documented with a record of decision (EIS/ROD). (EPA assumes a project may be documented with a CE only for grantee-proposed projects. EPA does not anticipate that an initial new source NPDES permit application would be documented with a CE.) For any specific project, only one of these levels of documentation is generally prepared. Applicants may submit an environmental information document (EID) to EPA as part of the environmental review process. Alternately, an applicant may submit a draft EA or a draft EIS and supporting documents does not anticipate that an initial new source NPDES permit application would be documented with a CE.) For any specific project, only one of these levels of documentation is generally prepared. Applicants may submit an environmental information document (EID) to EPA as part of the environmental review process. Alternately, an applicant may submit a draft EA or a draft EIS and supporting documents. Applicants may prepare and submit the information directly, or may enter a third-party contract agreement with EPA for preparation of an EA or EIS and supporting documentation. For purposes of determining the maximum costs to applicants for this ICR, EPA assumed that grant and permit applicants would expend time and contractor costs to submit: (1) Information to support application of a CE with environmental information prepared directly by the applicant's contractor; or (2) a draft EA and supporting documents prepared directly by the applicant's contractor; or (3) a draft and final EIS and supporting documents prepared by the applicant's contractor under a third-party contract agreement with EPA. Based on EPA's past experience, under the proposed rule, EPA anticipates there will be approximately 300 grantee projects annually with about 60% of these projects documented with a CE, and about 40% with an EA/FONSI. In addition, EPA estimates that one project (less than one percent of the total annual grantee projects) will have an EIS/ROD completed during the 3-year period of this ICR. For permit applicants, EPA assumes there will be approximately 12 projects annually with about 11 of the projects documented with an EA/FONSI. In addition, EPA estimates one project will have an EIS/ For purposes of this ICR, the total annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated at 48,147 hours and $3,823,740 for contractor hours and costs, direct labor hours and costs, and O&M costs will be approximately 12 projects annually with about 11 of the projects documented with an EA/FONSI. In addition, EPA estimates one project will have an EIS/ For purposes of this ICR, the total annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated at 48,147 hours and $3,823,740 for contractor hours and costs, direct labor hours and costs, and O&M costs. This burden reflects the annual submission of documentation for an anticipated 312 applicant-proposed projects that may be documented with a CE, or an EA/FONSI, or an EIS/ROD. Under the proposed rule, EPA assumes there will be approximately 300 grantee projects annually with about 60% of these projects documented with a CE, and about 40% with an EA/FONSI. In addition, EPA estimates that one project will have an EIS/ROD completed during the 3-year period of this ICR. For permit applicants, EPA assumes there will be approximately 12 projects annually with about 11 documented with an EA/FONSI. In addition, EPA estimates one project will have an EIS/ROD completed annually. None will be documented initially with a CE. The total burden estimate for this ICR reduces the burden of the previous collection by 6,350 hours and $451,440 (the previous collection estimated that there were approximately 300 grantee projects annually with about 50% of these projects documented with a CE and about 50% documented with an EA/FONSI. Approximately one project completed an EIS/ROD during the 3-year period of the ICR). Over the 3-year period of this ICR, EPA anticipates 937 applicant-proposed projects with a 3-year total burden estimate of 144,440 hours and $11,471,220. For the 3-year period of this ICR, the proposed rule would reduce the total burden by 19,050 hours and $1,354,320. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency nticipates 937 applicant-proposed projects with a 3-year total burden estimate of 144,440 hours and $11,471,220. For the 3-year period of this ICR, the proposed rule would reduce the total burden by 19,050 hours and $1,354,320. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9. To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this proposed rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2005-0062. Submit any comments related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSEES section of the beginning of this notice for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA R, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2005-0062. Submit any comments related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSEES section of the beginning of this notice for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after December 19, 2006, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by January 18, 2007. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal. C . Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We are proposing amendments to the Agency's procedures for implementing the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). This proposed rule also includes minor, technical amendments to the Agency's procedures for implementing Executive Order 12114, “Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions.” Certain applicants must submit environmental information to EPA as part of the process of complying with either NEPA or Executive Order 12114. EPA's Executive Order 12114 procedures further the purpose of NEPA and provide that EPA may be guided by these procedures to the extent they are applicable. Therefore, when EPA conducts an environmental assessment pursuant to its Executive Order 12114 procedures, the Agency generally follows its NEPA procedures. This proposed rule is applicable to certain EPA actions subject to NEPA, including certain applicant-proposed projects. Because the projects are proposed by the applicants, who are non-federal entities, including small businesses and small governments, EPA does not know what projects will be proposed, when they will be proposed, or what level of NEPA review will be http://www.regulations.gov ), and is summarized below. Based on EPA's past experience, EPA anticipates that annually there will be approximately 170 small governments applying to EPA for STAG grants for projects subject to NEPA, and four small businesses applying to EPA for new source NPDES permits for a total of approximately 174 small entities out of potential 312 total entities review will be http://www.regulations.gov ), and is summarized below. Based on EPA's past experience, EPA anticipates that annually there will be approximately 170 small governments applying to EPA for STAG grants for projects subject to NEPA, and four small businesses applying to EPA for new source NPDES permits for a total of approximately 174 small entities out of potential 312 total entities. Of the 174 small entities possibly affected by this proposed rule, we have determined that the economic impact of submitting one-time environmental documentation to support a CE determination would be less than 1% of annual revenues for all small entities; and that for the one-time costs associated with submitting EA-related environmental documentation six small entities (3.4%) could experience an economic impact of 1-3%, and up to four small entities (2%) could experience an economic impact of greater than 3%. Additionally, we have also determined that approximately 57 of the 174 small entities (33%) could experience an economic impact of 1-3%, and up to 26 of the 174 small entities (15%) could experience an economic impact of greater than 3% for the one-time costs associated with submitting EIS-related environmental documentation. In all, these approximately 83 small entities represent about 48% of the estimated 174 total number of small entities that could experience a one-time economic impact of 1-3% or greater of annual revenues. Of these 83 small entities, 79 are likely to be governmental grant applicants and could be grant-eligible for EPA financial assistance with only one EIS anticipated per three years with this likelihood spread over 300 total grant applicants, including small and large governments, including tribes, and special districts. Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this proposed rule on small entities ssistance with only one EIS anticipated per three years with this likelihood spread over 300 total grant applicants, including small and large governments, including tribes, and special districts. Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The environmental information submitted by an applicant under the proposed rule is one-time only for EPA actions subject to NEPA based on applicant proposals; i.e., actions proposed by grantees seeking funding assistance from EPA or for an NPDES permit application initiated by the permit applicant. In either case, EPA assumes the action will directly benefit the applicant (such as a grantee seeking STAG funding for renovation of a community drinking water system, or a permit applicant seeking an NPDES permit from EPA to further the applicant's business interests). Nonetheless, if the applicant cannot afford to provide the required environmental information to EPA, then EPA would undertake the environmental review without input from the applicant. (Applicants would normally be requested to demonstrate financial hardship, including inability to provide the requested environmental information.) Grantees may be grant-eligible for certain costs associated with providing environmental information to EPA; permit applicants are not eligible for EPA financial assistance. Further, EPA has attempted to reduce the cost on all entities, including small entities, through the following provisions of the proposed rule: Section 6.300 provides that an EID is not required when the action is categorically excluded, or the applicant will prepare a draft EA and supporting documents. The Responsible Official may prepare the NEPA documents without assistance from the applicant . Further, EPA has attempted to reduce the cost on all entities, including small entities, through the following provisions of the proposed rule: Section 6.300 provides that an EID is not required when the action is categorically excluded, or the applicant will prepare a draft EA and supporting documents. The Responsible Official may prepare the NEPA documents without assistance from the applicant. Section 6.302 provides that the Responsible Official may prepare generic guidance for categories of actions involving a large number of applicants; and must ensure early involvement of applicants, consult with the applicant and provide guidance describing the scope and level of environmental information required, and provide guidance on a project-by-project basis to any applicant seeking assistance. This Section also provides that the Responsible Official must consider the extent to which the applicant is capable of providing the required information, must not require the applicant to gather data or perform analyses that unnecessarily duplicate either existing data or the results of existing analyses available to EPA, and must limit the request for environmental information to that necessary for the environmental review. Section 6.303 provides that an applicant may enter into a third-party agreement with EPA. For grantees, third-party agreement contractor costs may be grant-eligible. Permit applicants are not eligible for EPA financial assistance. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector nterested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements MRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. EPA is proposing to amend its procedures for implementing the requirements of the National EPA is collecting information from certain applicants as part of the process of complying with either NEPA or Executive Order 12114. EPA's Executive Order 12114 procedures further the purpose of NEPA and provide that EPA may be guided by these procedures to the extent they are applicable. Therefore, when EPA conducts an environmental assessment pursuant to its Executive Order 12114 procedures, the Agency generally follows its NEPA procedures. For purposes of UMRA, applicant-proposed projects subject to either NEPA or Executive Order 12114 are addressed through the NEPA assessment process. Those subject to the proposed NEPA rule include EPA employees who must comply with NEPA and certain grant and permit applicants who must submit environmental information to EPA for their proposed projects. The EPA Responsible Official is responsible for the environmental review process, including any categorical exclusion (CE) determination or the scope, accuracy, and contents of a final environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) and any associated documents. The applicant contributes by submitting environmental information to EPA as part of the environmental review process he EPA Responsible Official is responsible for the environmental review process, including any categorical exclusion (CE) determination or the scope, accuracy, and contents of a final environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) and any associated documents. The applicant contributes by submitting environmental information to EPA as part of the environmental review process. The information submitted by grant or permit applicants is one-time only on a per-project basis for EPA actions subject to NEPA that are based on applicant proposals. Grantees are generally governmental jurisdictions, including State and local governments, and tribes applying to EPA for special projects identified in EPA's State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG account) or private sector applicants for new source NPDES permits issued by EPA. Applicants are required to provide environmental information to EPA as part of the environmental review process unless the EPA Responsible Official decides to prepare the NEPA documents without assistance from the applicant. If the applicant, including governmental grantees, cannot afford to provide the required environmental information to EPA, then EPA would undertake the environmental review without input from the applicant. Further, governmental grantees may be grant-eligible for certain costs associated with providing environmental information to EPA. The NEPA review for a project may result in a CE determination, or an EA documented with a finding of no significant impact (EA/FONSI), or an EIS documented with a record of decision (EIS/ROD). For any specific project, only one of these levels of documentation is generally prepared. Applicants may submit an environmental information document (EID) to EPA as part of the environmental review process. Alternately, an applicant may submit a draft EA or a draft EIS and supporting documents finding of no significant impact (EA/FONSI), or an EIS documented with a record of decision (EIS/ROD). For any specific project, only one of these levels of documentation is generally prepared. Applicants may submit an environmental information document (EID) to EPA as part of the environmental review process. Alternately, an applicant may submit a draft EA or a draft EIS and supporting documents. Applicants may prepare and submit the information directly, or may enter a third-party contract agreement with EPA for preparation of an EA or EIS and supporting documentation. Governmental grantees may be grant-eligible for certain costs associated with providing environmental information to EPA, including certain third-party contract costs; private sector permit applicants are not eligible for EPA financial assistance. For purposes of maximum cost estimates to applicants for UMRA purposes, EPA assumed that applicants would expend time and contractor costs to submit: (1) Information to support application of a CE with environmental information prepared directly by the applicant's contractor; or (2) a draft EA and supporting documents prepared directly by the applicant's contractor; or (3) a draft and final EIS and supporting documents prepared by the applicant's contractor under a third-party contract agreement with EPA. Based on EPA's past experience, under the proposed rule, EPA anticipates there will be approximately 300 grantee projects annually with about 60% of these projects documented with a CE, and about 40% with an EA/FONSI. In addition, EPA estimates that one project (less than one percent of the total annual grantee projects) will have an EIS/ROD completed during a 3-year period. For permit applicants, EPA assumes there will be approximately 12 projects annually with about 11 of the projects documented with an EA/FONSI. In addition, EPA estimates one project will have an EIS/ROD completed annually. None of the projects will be documented initially with a CE t (less than one percent of the total annual grantee projects) will have an EIS/ROD completed during a 3-year period. For permit applicants, EPA assumes there will be approximately 12 projects annually with about 11 of the projects documented with an EA/FONSI. In addition, EPA estimates one project will have an EIS/ROD completed annually. None of the projects will be documented initially with a CE. EPA estimated one-time costs for applicants to prepare the environmental documentation by including contractor hours and costs, direct labor hours and costs, and O&M for documentation submitted to EPA to support a CE determination, or an EA/FONSI, or an EIS/ROD. For a grantee, EPA estimates an applicant's one-time costs for submitting environmental information will be: $3,292 for CE documentation, or $18,340 for EA/FONSI documentation, or $324,480 for EIS/ROD documentation. For a permit applicant, EPA estimates an applicant's one-time costs for submitting environmental information will be: $53,940 for EA/FONSI documentation, or $328,880 for EIS/ROD documentation. These figures may vary depending on the complexity of issues associated with the project and the availability of relevant information, particularly for EISs. (For example, EPA's experience with a limited number of EISs has included one-time costs ranging from nominal for information submitted by letter to supplement an existing oil and gas extraction EIS to over a million dollars for new EISs for a mining project and an oil and gas extraction project with multiple complex issues.) EPA believes the calculation for this UMRA assessment is representative of most projects. On an annual one-time submission basis, EPA's aggregate estimate for applicants is $3,823,740 for contractor hours and costs, direct labor hours and costs, including third-year costs for an EIS/ROD for one grantee project or a mining project and an oil and gas extraction project with multiple complex issues.) EPA believes the calculation for this UMRA assessment is representative of most projects. On an annual one-time submission basis, EPA's aggregate estimate for applicants is $3,823,740 for contractor hours and costs, direct labor hours and costs, including third-year costs for an EIS/ROD for one grantee project. The requirement in today's proposed rule for applicants to submit one-time, project-specific environmental information does not impose substantial compliance costs on applicants, including governmental grantees, because it is not likely to result in the expenditure by applicants, including State and local governments, and tribes, in the aggregate, or the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Neither the proposed amendments to EPA's NEPA implementing regulations nor the minor, technical amendments to EPA's procedures implementing Executive Order 12114 have federalism implications ve “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Neither the proposed amendments to EPA's NEPA implementing regulations nor the minor, technical amendments to EPA's procedures implementing Executive Order 12114 have federalism implications. They will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national Although this proposed rule does not have federalism implications, as with EPA's current rule, some parts of the proposed NEPA regulations might require EPA to involve the States in the NEPA environmental review process. For example, § 6.202 encourages early coordination and cooperation with federal agencies, state and local governments, and tribes with jurisdiction by law or special expertise. Section 6.203 requires the Responsible Official to ensure meaningful public participation. EPA anticipates that State and local governments would participate in the public participation process. Section 6.204 of the proposed NEPA regulations lists extraordinary circumstances that would bar the Responsible Official from determining that a categorical exclusion applies to the action. The Responsible Official may ask the relevant State for assistance in determining whether the proposed action meets these criteria. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials. F exclusion applies to the action. The Responsible Official may ask the relevant State for assistance in determining whether the proposed action meets these criteria. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Neither the proposed amendments to EPA's NEPA implementing regulations nor the minor, technical amendments to EPA's procedures implementing Executive Order 12114 impose new regulatory obligations on tribes. They will not have substantial direct effects on tribes, on the relationship between the national government and tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the national government and tribes. Under EPA's current regulations, as well as the proposed rule, Tribes are required to submit environmental information only when the Tribes are project-applicants for EPA actions subject to NEPA or Executive Order 12114, for example, when Tribes apply for grants for special projects identified in EPA's State and Tribal Assistance (STAG) account, or for new source NPDES permits issued by EPA. The requirement to submit environmental information to EPA for the environmental review process do not impose substantial compliance costs because it is not likely to result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate of $100 million or more in any one year identified in EPA's State and Tribal Assistance (STAG) account, or for new source NPDES permits issued by EPA. The requirement to submit environmental information to EPA for the environmental review process do not impose substantial compliance costs because it is not likely to result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate of $100 million or more in any one year. Further, these requirements do not preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. Although this proposed rule does not have Executive Order 13175 implications, as with EPA's current rule, some parts of the proposed NEPA regulations might require EPA to involve tribes in the environmental review process. For example, § 6.202 encourages early coordination and cooperation with federal agencies, state and local governments, and tribes with jurisdiction by law or special expertise. Section 6.203 requires the Responsible Official to ensure meaningful public participation. EPA anticipates that tribes would participate in the public participation process as appropriate. Section 6.204 of the proposed NEPA regulations lists extraordinary circumstances that would bar the Responsible Official from determining that a categorical exclusion applies to the action. The Responsible Official may ask the relevant tribe for assistance in determining whether the proposed action meets these criteria. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks,” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children ks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks,” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule, including the proposed amendments to EPA's NEPA implementing procedures and the proposed minor, technical amendments to the Agency's procedures for implementing Executive Order 12114, is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution and Use This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies ) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rulemaking, which includes EPA's proposed amendments to its procedures for implementing the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and minor, technical amendments to the Agency's procedures for implementing Executive Order 12114, “Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions,” does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations EPA maintains an ongoing commitment to ensure environmental justice for all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income. Ensuring environmental justice means not only protecting human health and the environment for everyone, but also ensuring that all people are treated fairly and given the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies ronmental justice for all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income. Ensuring environmental justice means not only protecting human health and the environment for everyone, but also ensuring that all people are treated fairly and given the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. In recognizing that minority and/or low-income communities frequently may be exposed disproportionately to environmental harms and risks, EPA works to protect these and other burdened communities from adverse human health and environmental effects of its programs, consistent with existing environmental and civil rights laws, and their implementing regulations, as well as Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 11, 1994)). Executive Order 12898 establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on mi [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] ## Nearby sections - [71 FR 46 Time for Filing Employment Tax Returns and Modifications to the Deposit Rules](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_05-24563.md) - [71 FR 48 Changes To Practice for Continuing Applications, Requests for Continued Examination Practice, and Applications Containing Patentably Indistinct Claims](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_05-24528.md) - [71 FR 287 Request for Burden Reduction Recommendations; Rules Relating to Prompt Corrective Action and the Disclosure and Reporting of CRA-Related Agreements; Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 Review](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_06-12.md) - [71 FR 293 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E5-8240.md) - [71 FR 299 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-400, 777-200, and 777-300 Series Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E5-8244.md) - [71 FR 315 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Northern Mexican Gartersnake as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_06-1.md) - [71 FR 1397 Proposed Establishment of Area Navigation Instrument Flight Rules Terminal Transition Route (RITTR) T-210; Jacksonville, FL](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-68.md) - [71 FR 1398 Proposed Establishment of VOR Federal Airway V-623; NJ and NY](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-69.md) - [71 FR 1718 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR, and 747SP Series Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-136.md) - [71 FR 3025 Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York and Vicinity](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-583.md) - [71 FR 3027 Safety Zone; Vermilion River, Vermilion, OH. VYC Fleet Parade.](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-584.md) - [71 FR 3254 Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries; Guam Longline Fishing Prohibited Area](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-650.md) - [71 FR 3446 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Inflation Adjustment of Acquisition-Related Thresholds](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-701.md) - [71 FR 3448 Defense Acquisition Regulations System; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Foreign Acquisition Procedures](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-706.md) --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-21402. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.