Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, 74640-74663 [2020-25030]
Download as PDF
74640
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 226 / Monday, November 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
revoked by E.O. 13693, Planning for
Federal Sustainability in the Next
Decade. E.O. 13693, was later revoked
by E.O. 13834, Efficient Federal
Operations (83 FR 23771, May 22,
2018). The rule proposes to replace
references to the revoked E.O.s with a
reference to the DoD policy
memorandum, dated April 8, 2009,
Minimizing the use of Materials
Containing Hexavalent Chromium.
The objective of the case is to remove
two revoked E.O.s, while maintaining
current DoD policies and procedures for
minimizing the use of materials
containing hexavalent chromium.
Data generated from the Electronic
Data Access system for fiscal years 2017
through 2019, indicates that DoD has
awarded an average of 99,832 contracts
containing DFARS clause 252.223–7008,
Prohibition of Hexavalent Chromium, to
approximately 14,777 unique entities
per year, of which 70,470 contracts were
awarded to 10,868 unique small entities
(74 percent).
The rule does not impose any new
reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance
requirements. The requirements of
DFARS clause 252.223–7008 remain
unchanged; therefore, this rule is not
expected to affect significant numbers of
small business concerns.
The rule does not duplicate, overlap,
or conflict with any other Federal rules.
There are no significant alternatives
that will accomplish the objective of
this rule.
DoD invites comments from small
business concerns and other interested
parties on the expected impact of this
rule on small entities.
DoD will also consider comments
from small entities concerning the
existing regulations in subparts affected
by the rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
610. Interested parties must submit such
comments separately and should cite 5
U.S.C 610 (DFARS Case 2020–D031), in
correspondence.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
The rule does not contain any
information collection requirements that
require the approval of the Office of
Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
chapter 35).
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 223
Government procurement.
Jennifer D. Johnson,
Regulatory Control Officer, Defense
Acquisition Regulations System.
Therefore, 48 CFR 223 is proposed to
be amended as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 20, 2020
Jkt 253001
PART 223—ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY
AND WATER EFFICIENCY,
RENEWABLE ENERGY
TECHNOLOGIES, OCCUPATIONAL
SAFETY, AND DRUG-FREE
WORKPLACE
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR
part 223 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR
chapter 1.
2. Revise section 223.7301 to read as
follows:
■
223.7301
Policy.
In accordance with the DoD policy
memorandum of April 8, 2009,
Minimizing the Use of Hexavalent
Chromium, it is DoD policy to minimize
hexavalent chromium (an anticorrosive) in items acquired by DoD
(deliverables and construction material),
due to the serious human health and
environmental risks related to its use.
223.7302
[Removed and Reserved]
3. Remove and reserve section
223.7302.
■
[FR Doc. 2020–25431 Filed 11–20–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary of
Transportation
49 CFR Part 13
[Docket No. DOT–OST–2020–0229]
RIN 2105–AE97
Procedures for Considering
Environmental Impacts
AGENCY:
Office of the Secretary (OST),
DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
ACTION:
The U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) proposes to
update and codify its internal order
establishing the responsibilities and
procedures for complying with the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), currently found in DOT Order
5610.1C, ‘‘Procedures for Considering
Environmental Impacts,’’ which was
issued in 1979 and last updated in 1985.
This proposal would update the DOT
NEPA procedures in response to the
Council on Environmental Quality’s
(CEQ’s) final rule updating its NEPA
procedures and also incorporate
provisions of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU);
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Century Act (MAP–21); and the Fixing
America’s Surface Transportation
(FAST) Act related to the Department’s
environmental review process. This
proposed rule would modernize the
Department’s procedures and promote
collaboration and efficiency in the
implementation of NEPA. Finally, this
proposal would also update the list of
the Department’s categorical exclusions
consistent with the CEQ’s regulations
implementing NEPA.
DATES: Persons interested in submitting
written comments on this NPRM must
do so by December 23, 2020. The
Department will consider late comments
to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: To ensure you do not
duplicate your docket submissions,
please submit comments by only one of
the following means:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building,
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building,
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
Instructions: All comment
submissions must include the agency
name, docket name, and docket number
(DOT–OST–2020–0229) or Regulation
Identifier Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking (2105–AE97). Note that all
comments received will be posted
without change to www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided. Physical access to the Docket
is available at the Hand Delivery
address noted above.
This document may be viewed online
under the docket number noted above
through the Federal eRulemaking portal,
www.regulations.gov. An electronic
copy of this document may also be
downloaded from the Office of the
Federal Register’s website,
www.federalregister.gov, and the
Government Publishing Office’s
website, www.govinfo.gov/app/
collection/fr. In accordance with 5
U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its
rulemaking process. The DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the
commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 226 / Monday, November 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL–
14 FDMS), which can be viewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
April Marchese, Director, Infrastructure
Permitting Improvement Center, 202–
366–4416, april.marchese@dot.gov or
Krystyna Bednarczyk, Office of the
General Counsel, 202–366–5283,
Krystyna.bednarczyk@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Statutory Authority
The National Environmental Policy
Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347
(NEPA), requires all Federal agencies to
assess the environmental impact of their
actions. 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). The
Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) has issued regulations at 40 CFR
parts 1500–1508 (CEQ regulations)
implementing NEPA that are binding on
Federal agencies. On July 16, 2020, CEQ
issued a final rule comprehensively
updating those regulations. 85 FR 43304
(July 16, 2020). The CEQ regulations
require Federal agencies to develop or
revise their procedures for
implementing NEPA, as necessary, for
consistency with CEQ’s regulations or
for efficiency. 40 CFR 1507.3(b), (c). The
CEQ regulations require agencies to
consult with CEQ during the
development of their implementing
procedures and prior to their
publication in the Federal Register. 40
CFR 1507.3. The U.S. Department of
Transportation (Department or DOT) has
accordingly reviewed its current
implementing procedures and
undertakes this revision pursuant to 40
CFR 1507.3. The Department developed
the proposed rule in consultation with
CEQ. In accordance with 40 CFR
1507.3(a), the Department is proposing
this rule and providing an opportunity
for public review and comment on the
proposal.
B. Background
NEPA establishes a national
environmental policy of the Federal
Government to use all practicable means
and measures to foster and promote the
general welfare, create and maintain
conditions under which man and nature
can exist in productive harmony, and
fulfill the social, economic, and other
requirements of present and future
generations of Americans. 42 U.S.C.
4331(a). Section 102(2) of NEPA
establishes the procedural requirements
to carry out the policy stated in section
101 of NEPA. It requires Federal
agencies to consider the environmental
effects of proposed actions in their
decisionmaking and prepare detailed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 20, 2020
Jkt 253001
environmental statements on
recommendations or reports and other
major Federal actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human
environment. 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). In
2005, Congress enacted 23 U.S.C. 139,
‘‘Efficient environmental reviews for
project decisionmaking,’’ a streamlined
environmental review process for
highway, transit, and multimodal
transportation projects through the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (SAFETEA–LU), Public Law 109–
59, sec. 6002 (2005). In 2012, Congress
declared it in the national interest to
accelerate transportation project
delivery and reduce costs, and ensure
that transportation planning, design,
and construction are completed in an
efficient and effective manner. Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
Act (MAP–21), Public Law 112–141,
sec. 1301 (2012) (set out at 23 U.S.C. 101
note). In 2015, Congress also directed
the Department to implement a variety
of reforms to streamline and accelerate
its environmental review process. See
Fixing America’s Surface Transportation
Act (FAST) Act, Public Law 114–94
(2015).
The Department proposes to revise its
current procedures, DOT Order 5610.1C,
‘‘Procedures for Considering
Environmental Impacts,’’ originally
published in 1979, 44 FR 56420 (Oct. 1,
1979), and codify them in the Code of
Federal Regulations. DOT Order
5610.1C, which is now in effect, was
updated in 1982 and 1985 (1985
procedures).1 This proposed rule would
update and modernize the 1985
procedures and reflect current
departmental NEPA practice. As
reflected in the proposed rule, the
Department also considered comments
it received in response to its publication
of proposed Order 5610.1D in the
Federal Register on December 20, 2016.
81 FR 92966.
The Department is issuing this
proposed rule to enhance and
modernize the Department’s
environmental review processes, bring
consistency to the documentation of
environmental analyses under these
processes, and incorporate strategies to
complete environmental review more
efficiently in accordance with
streamlining efforts developed by the
Department at the direction of Congress.
This proposed rule would update the
procedures to be consistent with CEQ’s
updated regulations and promote
agency efficiency. This proposed rule
1 Available at https://www.transportation.gov/
sites/dot.gov/files/docs/Procedures_Considering_
Environmental_Impacts_5610_1C.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
74641
would also update the 1985 procedures
to account for relevant project delivery
provisions and other streamlining
efforts included in SAFETEA–LU,
MAP–21 and the FAST Act, that apply
departmentwide. Accordingly, the
proposed rule would reflect the
Department’s modern NEPA practices
and unique project delivery statutory
authorities by providing direction on
analyzing multimodal projects in an
expedited and streamlined manner,
enhancing early coordination, and
incorporating a multimodal categorical
exclusion (CE) process that allows the
Department’s Operating
Administrations (OAs) to utilize each
other’s CEs. The proposed rule would
also incorporate agency practice,
including environmental review
tracking requirements, and would
provide for accountability for agency
NEPA compliance to senior agency
officials, consistent with the updated
CEQ regulations. See 40 CFR
1508.1(dd).
The proposed rule seeks to ensure a
full and fair environmental review
process that includes meaningful public
involvement throughout, and balanced
consideration of alternatives and
potential impacts on the human
environment. The proposed rule would
modernize the 1985 procedures to
improve efficiency and expedite project
delivery; provide enhanced customer
service to stakeholders through
consistent implementation of NEPA
across the Department, where possible;
provide support for the Department’s
OAs to apply OAs specific NEPA
implementing procedures to their
specific programs; and balance the
needs of all OAs. These reforms are
intended to ensure that NEPA
documents inform and involve the
public, focus on the significant issues
that require analysis, and foster
informed decisionmaking based on an
understanding of the potential action’s
environmental consequences.
C. Expected Impact of the Proposed
Rule
This proposed rule would revise the
internal procedures of the Department,
promoting consistent implementation
across the Department of its
responsibilities under NEPA while still
allowing flexibility for each OA to carry
out its own mission. Facilitating the
appropriate use of departmental CEs
would reduce the expenditure of
government resources on the
preparation of environmental
assessments (EAs) or environmental
impact statements (EISs) and would
shorten approval timelines for activities
or projects that, based on the
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
74642
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 226 / Monday, November 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Department’s experience, normally do
not have the potential to have a
significant effect on the human
environment and therefore normally do
not require the preparation of an EA or
EIS. 40 CFR 1501.4. Promulgating CEs
for the entire Department also promotes
consistency, reduces inefficiency, and
allows OA procedures to focus on the
unique issues in their programs.
Codifying all these policies and
procedures would provide consistency,
aid efficiency, reduce duplication, and
refocus agency practice on fostering
informed decisionmaking, rather than
generating paperwork. The Department
expects that this would reduce
unnecessary delays. The Department
also expects the proposed changes to
increase the availability and use of CEs,
early collaboration, and dispute
resolution and coordination techniques,
and to improve timely completion of the
environmental review process.
II. Proposed Revisions Generally
The proposed rule would
comprehensively update the 1985
procedures. This proposal would update
the organization of the 1985 procedures
to align with current Department
organization, practice, and policies to
more effectively and efficiently
implement the DOT NEPA policies and
the new revisions of the CEQ
regulations published on July 16, 2020
(85 FR 43304). The proposal would
update the existing Departmentwide
CEs, including adding 11 new CEs and
modifying the existing CEs. The
proposal would also improve clarity and
reduce ambiguity regarding the entities
responsible for taking the actions
specified in the rule. To improve
readability, this proposal would
designate ‘‘OA’’ as the entity
responsible for conducting NEPA
analyses, and would define ‘‘OA’’ to
include a Secretarial Office that carries
out its own NEPA responsibilities (as
opposed to an office that relies on an
OA’s expertise to prepare the NEPA
document). This proposal also would
update the names of the relevant offices
that have responsibilities, including the
Office of Policy and Office of the
General Counsel (and relevant
subdivisions thereof). The proposal
would apply to the Department’s
diverse programs and actions, and, to
the extent possible, would avoid
creating conflicts with existing OA
programs and actions. To that end, the
Department does not propose to include
the more detailed policy concerning the
format and content of EISs that was
contained in Attachment 2 of the 1985
procedures. DOT also does not propose
to include Attachment 1 of the 1985
procedures, which provided a list of the
States and localities with EIS
requirements. Finally, this proposal
would update terminology for
consistency with modern NEPA practice
and the Department’s current
operations. The proposed revisions to
the 1985 procedures are provided in
Table 1.
TABLE 1—CROSSWALK OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 1985 PROCEDURES
1985 Procedures
Section
Proposed subpart
Introduction ....................................
1. Purpose ....................................
2. Cancellation ..............................
3. Authority ...................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
a. Action Covered .........................
b. Environmental Impact Statements.
c. Categorical Exclusions .............
d. Environmental Assessment ......
e. Exemptions ...............................
.......................................................
A ...................................................
Removed ......................................
B; Appendix C of part 13 ..............
Removed ......................................
A; B ...............................................
B ...................................................
A ...................................................
B ...................................................
13.1.
Removed.
13.7(d); Appendix C of part 13.
Removed.
13.5; 13.13.
13.9.
13.3.
13.23.
B; Appendix A of part 13 ..............
B ...................................................
Removed ......................................
B ...................................................
13.17; Appendix A of part 13.
13.19.
Removed.
13.21.
.......................................................
B ...................................................
13.11.
a. Scope of Statement ..................
b. Timing of Preparation of Draft
Statements.
c. Interdisciplinary Approach and
Responsibility for EIS Preparation.
d. Preparation of Draft ..................
e. Format and Content .................
f. Circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
g. Tiering .......................................
B ...................................................
B ...................................................
13.23(c).
13.25(a).
B ...................................................
13.13(d).
Removed ......................................
B ...................................................
B ...................................................
13.13(a); Appendix C.
13.23(e).
13.25(c).
B ...................................................
B ...................................................
B ...................................................
1.
2.
3.
4.
Background ................................
Policy and Intent ........................
Planning and Early Coordination
Environmental Processing
Choice.
5. Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI).
6. Lead Agencies and Cooperating
Agencies.
7. Preparation and Processing of
Draft Environmental Impact
Statements (DEISs).
8. Inviting Comments on the DEIS
9. Review of Environmental Impact
Statements Prepared by Other
Agencies.
10. Predecision Referrals to the
Council on Environmental Quality.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 20, 2020
Proposed section
a. State and Local Review ...........
b. Review of EISs Prepared Pursuant to Section 102(2)(D) of
NEPA.
.......................................................
B ...................................................
B ...................................................
13.13(f).
13.25(b).
13.23(f).
13.23(g).
13.25(c).
13.23(d).
Removed ......................................
Removed.
a. DOT Lead Agency Proposals ..
b. DOT Referrals to CEQ on
Other Agencies’ Proposals.
B ...................................................
B ...................................................
13.13(e)(2)(i).
13.13(e)(2)(ii).
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 226 / Monday, November 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
74643
TABLE 1—CROSSWALK OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 1985 PROCEDURES—Continued
1985 Procedures
11. Final Environmental Impact
Statements.
12. Determinations under Section
4(f) of the DOT Act.
13. Responsibility ...........................
14. Citizen Involvement Procedures.
15. Proposals for Legislation .........
16. International Actions ................
17. Timing of Agency Action ..........
18. Effective Date ..........................
19. Time in Effect of Statements ...
20. Implementing Instructions ........
21. Responsible Official for Office
of the Secretary Actions.
Attachment 1. State and Localities
with EIS Requirements.
Attachment 2. Format and Content
of Environmental Impact Statements.
Section
Proposed subpart
Proposed section
a. Preparation ...............................
b. Compliance with Other Requirements.
c. Legal Review ............................
d. Approval ...................................
e. Availability Pending Approval ...
f. Availability of Statements to
EPA and the Public.
g. Implementation of Representations in Environmental Statements.
h. Supplemental Statements ........
.......................................................
A; B; Appendix C of part 13.
B ...................................................
B ...................................................
Removed ......................................
B ...................................................
13.27(a).
13.5; 13.13(a);13.27(b); Appendix
C of part 13.
13.7.
13.27(e).
Removed.
13.25(h)–(i); 13.27(g).
B ...................................................
13.13(g).
.......................................................
B ...................................................
B ...................................................
Removed ......................................
13.33(b).
13.27(b).
Removed.
.......................................................
.......................................................
B ...................................................
B ...................................................
13.7.
13.13(h).
a. Preparation ...............................
b. Processing ................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
B ...................................................
B ...................................................
B ...................................................
B ...................................................
Removed ......................................
B ...................................................
B ...................................................
B ...................................................
13.37(a).
13.37(b).
13.39.
13.23(j).
Removed.
13.33(a).
13.7(e).
13.7.
.......................................................
Removed ......................................
Removed.
.......................................................
Removed ......................................
Removed.
B ...................................................
B ...................................................
B ...................................................
13.29.
13.31.
13.35.
III. Section-by Section Description of
Changes in the Proposed Rule
This proposal would rearrange the
1985 procedures and would separate
them into two subparts to divide the
generally applicable provisions in
subpart A from the provisions
addressing the NEPA review process
and compliance responsibilities in
subpart B. In addition, subpart B would
reorder sections from the 1985
procedures to align with the
Department’s environmental review
process and the levels of NEPA
documentation.
A. Subpart A—General
This proposal would remove the
Introduction and Background sections
of the 1985 procedures and would
transfer content addressing the purpose
of the Department’s NEPA
implementing procedures to proposed
§§ 13.1 and 13.5. Proposed subpart A
would significantly reorganize and
update section 2 of the 1985 procedures,
‘‘Policy and Intent,’’ in proposed § 13.5
to reflect current policy and intent of
the DOT NEPA procedures. As
discussed more specifically in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 20, 2020
Jkt 253001
section-by-section summaries of
proposed §§ 13.1 through 13.5, this
proposed subpart would emphasize the
Department’s goals to: (1) Achieve the
Department’s mission and ensure
consistency with national transportation
policy (§ 13.5(a)); (2) use the NEPA
process as an umbrella to achieve a
single, integrated environmental review
process 2 (§ 13.5(b)); (3) use sound
science and reliable data (§ 13.5(c)); (4)
facilitate a collaborative process to
achieve optimal outcomes while
protecting and enhancing the
environment (§ 13.5(d)); and (5) ensure
meaningful public participation and
collaboration (§ 13.5(e)).
This proposed subpart would set forth
the Department’s overarching
environmental policy in the context of
its agency mission, which is to ensure
the safest, most efficient and modern
transportation system in the world,
which improves the quality of life for all
American people and communities,
2 For the purpose of this NPRM, ‘‘environmental
review’’ encompasses both the NEPA process and
authorizations, including reviews or actions taken
to comply with relevant substantive environmental
requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
from rural to urban, and increases the
productivity and competitiveness of
American workers and businesses. The
proposed subpart would provide
consistency between the Department’s
NEPA procedures and congressional
declarations of policy, which provide
that it is in the national interest to
‘‘accelerate project delivery and reduce
costs’’ and to ensure that transportation
project delivery is completed in ‘‘an
efficient and effective manner,
promoting accountability for public
investments and encouraging greater
private sector involvement . . . while
enhancing safety and protecting the
environment.’’ MAP–21 sec. 1301 (set
out at 23 U.S.C. 101 note). Finally, this
subpart would support the presumptive
time limits established in the updated
CEQ regulations to complete
environmental documentation. See 40
CFR 1501.10.
§ 13.1 Applicability
The applicability section would focus
on the implementation of NEPA
pursuant to the CEQ regulations and
include covered actions. Covered
actions would identify categories of
Department actions typically subject to
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
74644
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 226 / Monday, November 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
NEPA. For consistency with the CEQ
regulations at 40 CFR 1508.1(q), this
section would clarify that loans and
loan guarantees may be actions subject
to NEPA when the OA exercises
sufficient control and responsibility
over the effects of such assistance. This
list would also include ‘‘approvals of
policies and plans (including those
submitted to the Department by State,
Tribal, or local agencies, or other public
or private applicants, unless otherwise
exempted).’’
The CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1501.1
and 1507.3(d) provide that agencies
should identify activities or decisions
that are not subject to NEPA. This
section would exclude transportation
improvement plans (TIPs) and statewide
improvement plans (STIPs) conducted
pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135
because TIPs and STIPs are statutorily
exempt from review under NEPA
pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 134(q) and 23
U.S.C. 135(k), respectively. In addition,
the section would clarify, consistent
with 40 CFR 1501.1(a)(5) and
1507.3(d)(5), and with Department of
Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541
U.S. 752 (2004), that a proposal is not
an action subject to NEPA if the
proposal is ministerial in nature; if the
Department lacks discretion to consider
the environmental impacts in making
the decision; or if the Department does
not have responsibility for, or cannot
control, the outcome. DOT recommends
that OAs identify any specific
additional activities or decisions to
which NEPA does not apply, consistent
with 40 CFR 1501.1 and 1507.3(d), as
appropriate, in their own implementing
procedures as stated in § 13.7(c)(1).
The Department proposed to use
‘‘rulemakings’’ rather than the phrase
‘‘rulemaking and regulatory actions’’ as
used in DOT Order 5610.1C because the
term rulemaking already encompasses
regulatory actions by its definition. In
addition, the Department does not
include ‘‘research activities’’ because
most of the Department’s research
activities would not have environmental
impacts subject to NEPA. To the extent
that a research activity is an action, it
may be appropriate to categorically
exclude an action under CE #9.
References to other environmental
requirements are updated and
reorganized. The Department therefore
proposes to list certain authorities
previously listed in paragraph 3 of the
Introduction section of the 1985
procedures in Appendix C of proposed
part 13. In addition, the Department
would not include statutory references
that are not broadly applicable to the
Department, are substantively addressed
elsewhere in the proposed rule, or are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 20, 2020
Jkt 253001
implemented by OA procedures. As a
result, this proposal would not include
the following references: Section 2(b) of
the Department of Transportation Act of
1966 (49 U.S.C. 1653); Section 309 of
the Clean Air Act, as amended (42
U.S.C. 7401 et seq.); Section 303 of the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
(43 U.S.C. 1241); and, where
environmental statements are required,
Sections 138 and 109 of Federal aid
highway legislation (Title 23); Sections
16 and 18(a) of the Airport and Airway
Development Act of 1970 (49 U.S.C.
1716, 1718); and Section 14 of the
Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964
(49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.).
§ 13.3 Definitions
While the 1985 procedures did not
contain a definitions section, the
Department determined that it would be
helpful to define certain terms to reduce
ambiguity as to certain terminology
used in this proposed rule and by the
Department’s NEPA practitioners. This
proposed section would incorporate by
reference the definitions from the CEQ
regulations set forth in 40 CFR 1508.1,
and supplement those definitions where
necessary. This section would define
the following terms:
(a) Applicant. This definition would
define ‘‘applicant’’ broadly to reflect the
variety of applicants encountered across
the Department. This definition also
would recognize that some OA NEPA
implementing procedures (OA
Procedures) provide that the applicant
will carry out some of the
responsibilities of the OA on its behalf,
and therefore could conduct activities
under the Department’s NEPA
procedures on behalf of that OA. This
definition is intended to provide
flexibility to OAs that administer
programs where applicants are
responsible for preparing NEPA
documents on behalf of OAs. This
includes State DOTs, transit agencies,
and other applicants that prepare NEPA
documents or carry out other
responsibilities for the NEPA process
pursuant to OA NEPA procedures. For
purposes of this part, the definition of
‘‘applicant’’ does not include States that
are assigned environmental review
responsibilities pursuant to a
memorandum of understanding
executed pursuant to statutory authority
under 23 U.S.C. 326 and 327. States that
carry out such assignments are deemed
to be OAs for purposes of this part.
(b) Environmental review process.
The Department would include this
term to emphasize that the Department
strives to comply not just with NEPA,
but with all applicable environmental
requirements in a single process, so as
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
to ensure efficient project delivery and
decisionmaking.
(c) Level of NEPA Review. The
Department would include this term to
mean the level of NEPA review required
for a particular action (i.e., a CE, an EA,
or an EIS).
(d) NEPA Document. The proposal
would use the term ‘‘NEPA document’’
in addition to ‘‘environmental
document’’ as used in the CEQ
regulations, and would define it more
broadly to include an EIS, a record of
decision (ROD), an EA, a finding of no
significant impact (FONSI), or any
documentation that may be prepared in
the application of a CE to a proposed
action.
(e) Operating Administration (OA):
The Department would define ‘‘OA’’ to
mean any agency established within the
Department, and cross reference to the
list of the current OAs in 49 CFR 1.3.
As noted in Section II of this
rulemaking, to improve readability of
this proposal, ‘‘OA’’ would also include
a Secretarial Office where that office is
carrying out its own NEPA
responsibilities.
§ 13.5 Environmental Review Policy
This proposed section would set forth
the Department’s policies for evaluating
environmental impacts caused by
Department actions. This section would
modify language previously contained
in sections 1 and 2 of the 1985
procedures and would state in proposed
paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) that the
policy of the Department is to: Integrate
Federal environmental objectives into
Department programs while avoiding or
minimizing adverse environmental
effects wherever practicable;
synchronize NEPA and other
environmental requirements into a
single, concurrent process; and apply
sound science, reliable data, and a
systematic interdisciplinary approach.
The Department’s policies further
statutory directives set forth in section
1313 of the FAST Act to: Develop a
coordinated and concurrent
environmental review and permitting
process for transportation projects as
well as align Federal reviews; reduce
permitting and project delivery
timelines; and facilitate interagency
collaboration. Accordingly, proposed
paragraphs (d) and (e) would include
instructions to: Maximize the use of
proven strategies to complete the
environmental review process
efficiently; and encourage meaningful,
proactive, open, and transparent public
participation and collaboration.
In addition, this proposed section
would not include certain policy
language from the 1985 procedures to
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 226 / Monday, November 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
update and align the Department’s
processes with the updated CEQ
regulations and statutory provisions
contained in section 1301 of MAP–21
(set out at 23 U.S.C. 101 note) directing
the Department to accelerate
transportation project delivery, reduce
costs, and ensure that transportation
projects are completed in a streamlined
manner and that environmental reviews
are efficient and effective. The
Department will continue to conduct
environmental reviews consistent with
40 CFR 1501.3 and other authorities,
where applicable, including Section 4(f)
(23 U.S.C. 138 and 49 U.S.C. 303). For
purposes of streamlining the
procedures, the Department would
clarify in Appendix C its expectation
that OAs would integrate into the NEPA
process compliance with substantive
environmental laws. As to this section,
the Department is of the view that it is
not necessary to include specific
references regarding: Preservation of the
natural beauty of the countryside and
public park and recreation lands,
wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and
historic sites; preservation, restoration,
and improvement of wetlands;
improvement of the urban physical,
social, and economic environment; and
provision of opportunities for
disadvantaged persons. These matters
are otherwise covered in substantive
environmental laws.
The Department would not include
language stating that the EIS, FONSI,
and determination that a proposed
action is categorically excluded serve as
the record of compliance with the
Department’s environmental review
policy, NEPA procedures, and other
environmental statutes and Executive
orders. The proposal recognizes that an
EIS contains analyses, but is not a
decision document like a FONSI or CE
determination, and an EIS alone is not
final agency action. See 40 CFR
1500.3(c) and 85 FR at 43318.
B. Subpart B—NEPA Review Process
§ 13.7 Managing NEPA Compliance
Proposed § 13.7 would be a new
addition to the Department’s
implementing procedures. This section
would list the roles and responsibilities
within the Department for
implementing NEPA, the CEQ
regulations, this proposed rule, OA
implementing procedures, and other
applicable laws.
The CEQ regulations introduce the
term ‘‘senior agency official’’ to
differentiate between an agency
decisionmaker for an individual action
and the agency official who oversees the
agency’s overall compliance with NEPA.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 20, 2020
Jkt 253001
40 CFR 1508.1(dd). CEQ acknowledged
that multiple individuals may carry out
these responsibilities in agencies that
have subunits with their own agency
procedures or NEPA compliance
programs. 85 FR 43304, 43315 (July 16,
2020). Within DOT, OAs carry out their
own NEPA compliance programs.
Accordingly, proposed paragraph (a)
would identify the Assistant Secretary
for Transportation Policy (Assistant
Secretary) as the senior agency official
responsible for implementing NEPA,
establishing NEPA policy, and
identifying the OA that will serve as the
lead agency for all actions taken by the
Department pursuant to 49 CFR
1.25a(a)(2). For example, to create
efficiencies, the senior agency official
may designate one OA to act as the lead
agency and to prepare the
environmental documentation on behalf
of all OAs for certain actions, such as
when a multimodal project receives
funding from or requires approval by
one or more OAs. In addition, consistent
with CEQ’s direction and to maximize
efficiency, these procedures would, in
certain instances, permit an OA
Administrator to carry out the
responsibilities of a senior agency
official at an OA level. For example,
paragraph (c) of § 13.19 would permit
either the Assistant Secretary or an OA
Administrator to act as the senior
agency official for purposes of allowing
an OA to exceed the presumptive limit
of 75 pages and to establish a new page
limit for the EA. Similarly, for purposes
of setting EA time limits for EAs,
paragraph (c) of § 13.19 would authorize
either official to set new time limits.
Finally, consistent with the
Department’s Interim Guidance on Page
Limits for National Environmental
Policy Act Documents and Focused
Analyses (84 FR 44351 (August 23,
2019)), the Department would reserve to
the Assistant Secretary in § 13.23(f)
through (g) similar decisionmaking
authority for EISs.
Proposed paragraph (b) would
identify the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, Office of Policy
Development, Strategic Planning, and
Performance (Office of Policy) as the
responsible office for NEPA
implementation and compliance with
related environmental requirements,
and as the source of additional
environmental review process
information. It would require OAs to
consult with the Office of Policy, and in
turn with the Office of the General
Counsel (OGC), in certain situations.
Proposed paragraph (c) would
identify OGC as legal counsel to the
Office of Policy on topics related to the
implementation and interpretation of
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
74645
NEPA, the CEQ regulations, this
proposed rule, and other applicable
laws; charge OGC with providing legal
sufficiency determinations on
Department NEPA documents; and
charge OGC with coordinating with OAs
and the Department of Justice on NEPArelated litigation.
Proposed paragraph (d) would
identify this proposal as a supplement
to CEQ regulations that sets forth
procedures specific to Department
actions, with which all OAs must
comply. This provision originally
appeared in the Introduction section of
the 1985 procedures.
Proposed paragraphs (e)(1) through (5)
would require each OA to issue or
modify its NEPA implementing
procedures through an Order or
regulations consistent with this
proposal, the CEQ regulations, and other
applicable laws. This section would also
outline the minimum requirements of
each OA’s procedures, and the process
that OAs may use to revise existing or
create new provisions. This direction
was originally found at section 20 of the
1985 procedures and has been updated
to reflect the updated CEQ regulations
(85 FR 43304 (July 16, 2020)). Finally,
this proposed section would authorize
OAs, subject to 40 CFR 1507.3(a), to rely
on their existing procedures until their
new procedures are reviewed and
revised, and to use, on a discretionary
basis, portions of the Department’s
procedures to the extent such direction
has not been incorporated into the OA’s
procedures.
§ 13.9 Planning and Early
Coordination
Proposed § 13.9 would retain the
direction provided in the 1985
procedures at section 3, ‘‘Planning and
Early Coordination,’’ and would
incorporate direction for the early
portions of the NEPA process. Proposed
paragraph (a) is intended to implement
MAP–21 sec. 1320, which encourages
agencies to coordinate with one another
‘‘at the earliest practicable time.’’
Consistent with 40 CFR 1501.2(a),
proposed paragraph (a)(1) would
encourage early and ongoing
coordination, and would require early
efforts to identify the purpose and need,
environmental impacts, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid,
minimize, or mitigate adverse
environmental impacts, as appropriate.
Consistent with requirements in 40 CFR
1506.1, the proposed paragraph (a)(2)
would include a general prohibition
against taking actions that will have an
adverse environmental impact or limit
the choice of reasonable alternatives
until after a final NEPA determination is
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
74646
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 226 / Monday, November 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
made; and it would set forth notification
requirements should the OA become
aware that such an action may have
been taken. Proposed paragraphs (b) and
(c) would build on section 3(b) of the
1985 procedures. Proposed paragraph
(b) would require OAs to ensure that
applicants are aware of environmental
review and analysis requirements.
Proposed paragraph (c) would require
coordination with other OAs; Federal,
State, Tribal, and local resource and
regulatory agencies; stakeholders; and
the public to comply with NEPA and
other relevant statutes, regulations, and
Executive Orders. Proposed paragraph
(d) would encourage reliance on
information developed during the
planning process to avoid duplicating
efforts in the NEPA process. This
proposal would encourage
consideration of environmental impacts
during transportation planning;
however, this process is explicitly
exempted from NEPA pursuant to 23
U.S.C. 134(q) and 135(k). Nevertheless,
in accordance with MAP–21 sec. 1310
and FAST Act sec. 1305, this proposal
would recognize the statutory
framework that permits the products of
statewide and metropolitan planning
processes to be adopted for use in the
NEPA process. Proposed paragraph (e)
would discuss the use of the scoping
process in early coordination to identify
significant issues and to ensure early
public involvement in the NEPA
process. It further would instruct OAs to
use early coordination tools to
accelerate the EIS process.
§ 13.11 Lead, Cooperating, and
Participating Agencies
Proposed § 13.11 would include
language, with minor revisions,
generally consistent with section 6 of
the 1985 procedures, ‘‘Lead Agencies
and Cooperating Agencies.’’ This
section would outline the
responsibilities of lead, joint lead,
cooperating, and participating agencies
consistent with the CEQ regulations, the
appropriate timing for coordination
with cooperating agencies, and
protocols for coordinating with agencies
that decline a DOT-requested
cooperating agency status. This section
would align with the update to the CEQ
regulations, 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1501.8,
to highlight the responsibilities of the
lead agency, including the
responsibility to issue a single
environmental document, single FONSI,
or single ROD for the lead and
cooperating agencies, the responsibility
to determine the scope and significant
issues to be analyzed in depth in the
environmental impact statement, and
the responsibility to determine the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 20, 2020
Jkt 253001
purpose and need and range of
alternatives in consultation with the
cooperating agency. In addition, the
lead agency would be responsible for
creating and updating the project
schedule in coordination with the
cooperating agencies. Finally, proposed
paragraph (d) would recommend
inviting agencies that may have an
interest in the proposed action and are
not cooperating or lead agencies to
participate in the environmental review
process. This approach is similar to the
participating agency role set forth in 23
U.S.C. 139(d). Since applicants may
carry out the responsibilities of the OA
on its behalf, this proposal would not
include the requirement from the 1985
procedures for applicants to serve as
joint lead agencies.
§ 13.13 General Principles for the
NEPA Review Process
This proposal would include a new
proposed § 13.13. This proposed
addition would build upon several
provisions from the 1985 procedures,
including section 2, ‘‘Policy and Intent;’’
section 7, ‘‘Preparation and Processing
of Draft Environmental Statements;’’
section 10, ‘‘Predecision Referrals to the
Council on Environmental Quality;’’
and section 14, ‘‘Citizen Involvement
Procedures.’’
Proposed paragraph (a) would address
the integration, to the maximum extent
possible and at the earliest possible
time, of all environmental reviews into
the NEPA process to create a single
environmental document.
To expedite project delivery,
proposed paragraph (b) would instruct
OAs to incorporate by reference
previously prepared and publicly
available analyses, whenever possible,
and to include a brief summary of the
material in the NEPA document.
Proposed paragraph (c) would set
forth general requirements for NEPA
documents, in accordance with 40 CFR
1500.4(d), 1502.2(a) and (c), and 1502.8,
including that they be written in plain
language and that they address impacts
in proportion to their significance.
Proposed paragraph (d) would require
OAs to use an interdisciplinary
approach, consistent with 40 CFR
1502.6, and provide that they may use
professional services but must have staff
with the capacity to evaluate these
services and must take responsibility for
the final content of their NEPA
documents, consistent with 40 CFR
1506.5 and 1507.2.
Proposed paragraph (e) would
promote the use of informal conflict
resolution as well as environmental
collaboration and conflict resolution
(ECCR), consistent with the applicable
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
requirements related to issue elevation
and resolution outlined in section 6002
of SAFETEA–LU, 40 CFR 1504.2, and
1504.3(d) through (h), Executive Order
(E.O.) 13807, and the September 7,
2012, CEQ/OMB joint ‘‘Memorandum
on Environmental Collaboration and
Conflict Resolution.’’ Proposed
paragraph (e)(2) would include with
revisions section 10 of the 1985
procedures, ‘‘Pre-decision Referrals to
the Council on Environmental Quality’’.
This proposed paragraph would address
the internal process for addressing or
making referrals to CEQ. Overall, the
process would remain the same, with
revisions to reflect current practices for
internal clearance and documentation
requirements.
Proposed paragraph (f) would provide
direction on the use of tiering to
improve or simplify the environmental
analysis of actions that are similar or
broad in nature, or when future
decisions or unknown future conditions
preclude a complete NEPA analysis,
consistent with 40 CFR 1501.11 and
1502.4(b)(2). It also would encourage
the use of programmatic approaches
with resource or regulatory agencies,
where possible. This instruction is
consistent with MAP–21 sec. 1305,
which modified the environmental
review process mandated in sec. 6002 of
SAFETEA–LU by explicitly authorizing
the Department to use programmatic
approaches to conduct environmental
reviews. 23 U.S.C. 139(b).
Proposed paragraph (g), which is
consistent with 40 CFR 1501.6(c),
1505.2(a)(3) and 1505.3, would instruct
OAs to identify in the FONSI or ROD
those measures that the lead agency is
adopting and committing to implement.
Due to the importance of ensuring
implementation of mitigation measures,
OAs would be instructed to take
appropriate steps to ensure that these
mitigation measures are implemented,
including, for third-party actions, by
conditioning the agency decision upon
the performance of the mitigation
commitments. Where legal authority
exists, OAs would be permitted to
provide for mitigation monitoring.
Proposed paragraphs (h)(1) and (2)
would identify public involvement as
an important part of each stage of the
development of a proposed action that
should begin as early as reasonable and
should be integrated into the NEPA
process. The language would remain
relatively unchanged from the original
section 14 of the 1985 procedures, but
has been updated to include modern
technologies, such as using social
media. Because the CEQ regulations
provide flexibility with regard to public
hearings, the Department does not
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 226 / Monday, November 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
include section 14(e) of the 1985
procedures. The revised provision
provides flexibility in implementation
and recognizes the importance of
various engagement strategies. In
addition, the proposed rule states that
that methods to solicit the views of the
public should be tailored to reach those
persons who are interested or affected
by the action, and NEPA documents
should be made available online where
appropriate and practicable. Finally,
this provision would incorporate CEQ’s
requirements from 40 CFR 1500.3(b),
1500.4(n), and 1503.3, that public
comments be solicited as early in the
process as possible, that they be
specific, and that OAs provide notice
that comments not submitted shall be
forfeited as unexhausted.
Proposed paragraph (i) would
recognize that NEPA decisionmaking
may not be delegated to third parties,
but that many NEPA documents are
prepared by third parties. Accordingly,
this paragraph would address the use of
contractors in preparing NEPA
documents and set forth requirements
consistent with 40 CFR 1506.5, which
require OAs to provide guidance,
participate in the preparation of, and
independently review and assume
responsibility for the content of all
NEPA documents. OAs would retain
responsibility for the documents’
accuracy, scope, and contents. The
section also would provide guidance for
the selection of contractors. The
Department notes that OA procedures
may include different requirements
regarding the OA’s use of contractors.
See, e.g., 23 U.S.C. 112.
Proposed paragraph (j) would
incorporate existing NEPA tracking
requirements at 40 CFR 1501.7(i),
1501.9(d)(5), and 1507.4 under which
certain OAs must report applicable
actions on the Permitting Dashboard,
www.permits.performance.gov. The
DOT Reporting Standards 3 clarify
which OAs and which projects must be
tracked. Currently the DOT Reporting
Standards require the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Transit
Administration, Federal Railroad
Administration, and Federal Aviation
Administration (including Stage
agencies with NEPA assignment
pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327) to track all
EAs and EISs for infrastructure projects.
In addition, the DOT Reporting
Standards reflect the E.O. 13807
requirement that all OAs must track
major infrastructure projects, as that
3 The DOT Reporting Standards are available at:
https://www.transportation.gov/transportationpolicy/permittingcenter/federal-permittingdashboard-reporting-standard.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 20, 2020
Jkt 253001
term is defined in E.O. 13807. These
reporting standards have been subject to
modification since first established in
2016 and may be subject to additional
revisions in the future. Accordingly, the
proposed rule would include only a
high-level reference to the reporting
requirements, while the specifics are
addressed in the Reporting Standards to
make it easier to revise as necessary.
§ 13.15 Determination of the Level of
NEPA Review
Proposed § 13.15 would include with
modifications the 1985 procedures at
section 4, ‘‘Environmental Processing
Choice.’’ The discussions of CEs and
EAs in section 4 would be addressed in
proposed §§ 13.17 and 13.19,
respectively, and the list of references to
OA CEs would be addressed in
Appendix B. Proposed paragraph (a)
would require OAs to establish the
appropriate scope of the proposed
action using, as applicable, the criteria
in 40 CFR 1501.9(e) to determine the
appropriate level of NEPA review.
Proposed paragraph (b) would instruct
OAs to ensure that the scope of a
proposed action has independent utility
or significance and does not
unreasonably restrict the consideration
of alternatives for other reasonably
foreseeable actions to ensure meaningful
and objective evaluation of alternatives.
Proposed paragraph (c) would require
analysis of the potentially affected
environment and the degree of the
effects in considering significance,
consistent with 40 CFR 1501.3(b), which
includes consideration of short- and
long-term effects, beneficial and adverse
effects, effects on public health and
safety, and effects that would violate
Federal, State, Tribal, or local laws
protecting the environment where the
effects are reasonably foreseeable and
have a reasonably close causal
relationship to the proposed action (see
1508.1(g)). Proposed paragraph (d)
would reflect the Office of Policy’s role
as the responsible office for NEPA
implementation and compliance and
provide guidance to OAs to notify the
Office of Policy for situations involving
unresolved disagreements between the
OA and an applicant regarding the
appropriate level of NEPA review.
§ 13.17 Categorical Exclusions
Section 13.17 would provide an
update to the 1985 procedures at section
4(c), ‘‘Categorical Exclusions.’’ Proposed
paragraph (a) would provide the
definition of CEs, consistent with 40
CFR 1508.1(d) and 1501.4, and the
requirement to consider whether
extraordinary circumstances are present
such that the OA must prepare an EA or
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
74647
EIS. Proposed paragraph (b) would
provide a list of extraordinary
circumstances that an OA must consider
before applying a CE listed in proposed
Appendix A of part 13. These represent
circumstances in which a normally
excluded action may have significant
environmental effects; this updated list
would add substantial increases of noise
in a noise-sensitive area; substantial
adverse effects on a species listed or
proposed to be listed on the List of
Endangered or Threatened Species, or
designated Critical Habitat for these
species; a site that involves a unique
characteristic of the geographic area,
such as prime or unique agricultural
land, a coastal zone, a historic or
cultural resource, park land, wetland,
wild and scenic river, designated
wilderness or wilderness study area,
sole source aquifer (potential sources of
drinking water), or an ecologically
critical area; as well as inconsistency
with any applicable Federal, State, or
local air quality standards, including
those under the Clean Air Act, as
amended; substantial short-or long-term
increases in traffic congestion or traffic
volumes on any mode of transportation;
or substantial impacts on the
environment resulting from the
reasonably foreseeable, reportable
release of hazardous or toxic substances.
This list only would be applicable to the
CEs listed in proposed Appendix A of
part 13. However, when updating OA
Procedures, OAs would be directed to
consider whether any of the
extraordinary circumstances provided
in proposed paragraph (b) are
appropriate to add to their list.
Under section 1314 of MAP–21,
Congress first amended 49 U.S.C. 304 to
establish a process by which OAs could
apply CEs to multimodal projects, as
that term is defined in 23 U.S.C. 139(a).
Through section 1310 of the FAST Act,
Congress later amended 49 U.S.C. 304
so that one OA could apply the CE
established in the procedures of another
OA for multimodal projects, as defined
in 23 U.S.C. 139(a)(5). Proposed
paragraph (c) would implement these
authorities departmentwide.
The CEQ regulations allow agencies to
establish a process to use other Federal
agencies’ CEs for their proposed actions
after consultation with the other
agencies to ensure that use of their CEs
is appropriate. The regulations require
documentation of the consultation and
identification to the public of those CEs
that the OA may use for its proposed
actions. 40 CFR 1507.3(f)(5). DOT
requests comments on whether the
Department should create such a
process and on the design of any such
process, or whether it is more
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
74648
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 226 / Monday, November 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
appropriate to direct each OA to
develop a process in its own OA
Procedures. If the departmental
procedures were to include such a
process, the provisions could describe
the agency process under which an
agency may borrow another agency’s
CE, including describing the proposed
action, identifying potentially
applicable CEs, documenting the
applicability analysis, consulting with
the originating agency, keeping records,
and providing public notice. The
Department will consider appropriate
measures or provisions if it elects to
establish such a process.
The CEQ regulations require agencies
to review their existing NEPA
procedures to ensure that they are
consistent with CEQ’s revised
regulations and to adopt, as necessary,
agency procedures that improve agency
efficiency. 40 CFR 1507.3(b), 40 CFR
1501.4(a). The Department undertook
such a review, and Appendix A would
update and maintain a list of
Departmental CEs. Based on its review,
the Department would propose to add
11 new CEs, eliminate existing CE 3 and
the subpart for existing 6b, and modify
the remaining five existing CEs.
Modifications to existing CEs would
provide clarity and reflect the
Department’s experience with these
activities. The Department provides
additional information and justification
for updating the existing CEs and
supporting the new CEs in the docket
for this rulemaking.
The proposed rule would re-order and
re-number the Departmentwide CEs
from the 1985 procedures. In the new
proposed CEs, the Department has
identified routine operational activities,
including training and educational
activities (proposed CE 3); leasing of
space in existing buildings (proposed
CE 6); remodeling existing facilities
(proposed CE 7); landscaping and
landscape maintenance that does not
cause introduction or spread of invasive
species (proposed CE 8); investigations,
research activities, and studies
(proposed CE 9); hearings and public
meetings (proposed CE 12);
administrative actions and proceedings
(proposed CE 13); financial assistance to
an applicant solely for the purpose of
refinancing outstanding debt, where the
debt funds an action that is already
completed as a categorically excluded
activity (proposed CE 14); and certain
agreements concerning foreign
governments, foreign civil aviation
authorities, and international
organizations and the implementation of
such agreements (proposed CE 15).
This rule also would add two new
CEs relating to rulemaking and policy
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 20, 2020
Jkt 253001
activities. The first would cover the
promulgation, modification, or
revocation of rules and development of
policies, notices, and other guidance
documents that are strictly
administrative, organizational, or
procedural in nature; or are corrective,
technical, or minor (proposed CE 10).
The second CE would cover the
promulgation, modification, revocation,
or interpretation of safety standards,
rules, and regulations that do not result
in a substantial increase in emissions of
air or water pollutants, noise, or traffic
congestion, or increase the risk of
reportable release of hazardous
materials or toxic substances (proposed
CE 11).
Finally, proposed CE 5 would modify
existing CE 5 from the 1985 procedures,
which incorporates by reference CEs
identified in OA Procedures, and would
expressly allow one OA to apply the CE
of another OA. In order to apply a CE
listed in another OAs procedures, the
OA that has established the CE in its
procedures must confirm that the OA
administering the action is applying the
CE appropriately, and that the action to
which the CE is being applied was
contemplated when the CE was
established. Therefore, the Department
would revise the CE to read, ‘‘Action
categorically excluded in an OA’s
procedures where the action is
administered by another OA. The OA
with the CE must provide a written
determination that the CE applies to the
action proposed by the other OA and
must provide expertise in reviewing the
action being categorically excluded.’’
Over the last decade, the Department
has implemented a number of new
programs and projects that go beyond
the bounds of a particular OA. This
updated CE would allow the
Department the flexibility to administer
its projects and programs more
effectively and efficiently, taking
advantage of multiple OAs’ resources
and expertise, while ensuring that CEs
are appropriately applied to proposed
actions. For example, the Department
may ask one OA to administer a grant
because it has extensive experience with
that type of grantee, but the underlying
project falls within the environmental
expertise of another OA. The latter OA
would determine whether application of
its CEs to the project is appropriate
because it is contemplated within that
category of action and whether any
extraordinary circumstances are present
such that preparation of an EA or EIS
may be required.
§ 13.19 Environmental Assessments
Proposed § 13.19 is a new section to
address the preparation of EAs; it would
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
update the 1985 procedures at section
4(d), ‘‘Environmental Assessment,’’
which provided guidance for the
preparation of EAs. In accordance with
40 CFR 1501.5 and 1508.1(h), proposed
paragraph (a) would explain when an
EA must be prepared. Proposed
paragraph (b) would provide the
required elements for an EA, consistent
with 40 CFR 1501.5, while proposed
paragraph (c) would set forth an EA
page limit of 75 pages consistent with
40 CFR 1501.5(f) unless a senior agency
official approves in writing an EA to
exceed 75 pages and establishes a new
page limit. It also would outline the
senior agency official approval required
to exceed page limits beyond these
lengths. This paragraph would require
the EA to be concise and to correlate to
the magnitude of the proposed action
and its anticipated impacts. Proposed
paragraph (d) would provide the
requirement that an EA should be
prepared within one year from the
agencies’ determination to prepare an
EA consistent with 40 CFR
1501.10(a)(1). If, during development of
the EA, the OA concludes that there will
be significant impacts and therefore
would not issue a FONSI, the OA would
issue an NOI, and the time limits for
EISs would apply consistent with 40
CFR 1501.10(a)(1).
Proposed paragraph (e) addresses the
alternatives analysis for EAs, which may
be limited to the proposed action and no
action alternative, and may be analyzed
to a degree commensurate with the
nature of the proposed action and the
OA’s experience with the potential
environmental impacts of similar
projects. OAs would be instructed to
indicate a preferred alternative in the
EA, if one has been identified. For those
alternatives that were considered and
eliminated, the OAs would be directed
to provide a brief justification of these
decisions in the EA. Proposed paragraph
(f) would note that EAs should reflect
compliance or plans for compliance
with other applicable environmental
requirements, 40 CFR 1501.5(g)(3) and
1502.24, and proposed paragraph (g)
would require an OA to evaluate the
environmental issues independently
and take responsibility for the accuracy,
scope and contents of EAs prepared by
applicants, 40 CFR 1506.5(b)(2).
Proposed paragraph (h) would require
OAs to involve the public, State, Tribal
and local governments, relevant
agencies, and any applicants to the
extent practicable, 40 CFR 1501.5(e),
and to make EAs available to the public,
40 CFR 1506.6(b) and 1501.6(a)(2). It
would allow OAs to use their discretion
to determine if a draft EA should be
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 226 / Monday, November 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
released for public comment, though
OAs would be required to address
substantive comments in the final EA or
FONSI.
§ 13.21 Findings of No Significant
Impact
Proposed § 13.21 would incorporate
with updates section 5 of the 1985
procedures, ‘‘Finding of No Significant
Impact,’’ continuing to focus on the CEQ
regulatory requirements for a FONSI set
forth in 40 CFR 1501.6. Consistent with
that provision, proposed paragraph (b)
would set forth the circumstances when
an OA may issue a mitigated FONSI,
including identifying the mitigation
measures necessary to reduce the
potential impacts below a level of
significance; ensuring the existence of
sufficient legal authority and adequate
commitment and resources to execute
the mitigation measures; requiring
implementation of the mitigation
measures in any agreement with an
outside party; and where appropriate,
providing for monitoring and further
action when there is a failure to
implement mitigation measures or a
failure in their effectiveness.
As OAs, must make FONSIs available
to the public as specified in 40 CFR
1501.6, this section would not include
the unnecessary instructions contained
in section 5(c) of the 1985 procedures
regarding internal coordination of
FONSIs and circulation of Notices of
Availability to State and area-wide
clearinghouses. The proposed rule also
does not include the instruction in
section 5(c) that consultation with other
Federal agencies concerning Section 4(f)
(23 U.S.C. 138/49 U.S.C. 303), the
National Historic Preservation Act,
Clean Water Act Section 404 permits,
and other Federal requirements should
be accomplished prior to or during the
30-day period. This requirement to
consult applies to all EAs, not just when
a 30-day public comment period is
required. Rather than providing in this
proposed rule specific direction on
compliance with substantive
requirements contained in other
environmental statutes, the Department
instead proposes to include in
Appendix C a non-exhaustive list of
relevant environmental reviews,
authorizations, and consultations that
OAs would be expected to integrate into
the NEPA process.
§§ 13.23–13.27 Environmental Impact
Statements
Proposed sections 13.23 through
13.27 would address the requirements
for EISs. To improve clarity, the
Department would include the
requirements that apply to both draft
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 20, 2020
Jkt 253001
and final EISs in proposed § 13.23, and
address requirements specific to draft
EISs (DEISs) in proposed § 13.25, and
FEISs in proposed § 13.27. Generally,
these sections would set forth the
requirements from the CEQ regulations,
including those in 40 CFR part 1502,
and update the information previously
included in the 1985 procedures at
section 7, ‘‘Preparation and Processing
of Draft Environmental Statements,’’
section 8, ‘‘Inviting Comments on the
Draft EIS,’’ and section 11, ‘‘Final
Environmental Impact Statements.’’
However, generally applicable
instructions from these provisions in the
1985 procedures would be addressed in
proposed § 13.9.
Proposed paragraph (a) of proposed
§ 13.23 would set forth when NEPA
requires an EIS (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)),
and for clarity and consistency with 40
CFR 1507.3(e)(2), would note that
examples of typical actions that require
an EIS are listed in OA Procedures.
Proposed paragraph (b) would instruct
OAs to prepare a notice of intent to
prepare an EIS and publish it in the
Federal Register, 40 CFR 1501.9(d) and
1508.1(u). Proposed paragraph (c)
would set forth scoping requirements
pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.9, 1506.3, and
1508.1(cc), including the actions,
alternatives, and impacts that must be
considered when determining the
appropriate scope of issues to be
addressed in the EIS. The scoping
process must consider the type of action
and determine the level of NEPA
review. (See Section 13.15(c)). To
determine whether the effects of the
proposed action are significant, the OA
must analyze the degree of the effects of
the proposed action relative to the
affected environment consistent with 40
CFR 1501.3. Proposed paragraph (d)
would instruct OAs to provide early
notice and solicit the views of any State
or Federal land management entity that
may be significantly affected by an
action proposed by a State agency or
official with statewide jurisdiction (42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(d)). Proposed paragraphs
(e)(1) through (6) would, consistent with
40 CFR part 1502, address the format
and content of EISs, including purpose
and need, alternatives, affected
environment, environmental
consequences, mitigation, and the
summary of submitted alternatives,
information, and analyses. The detailed
discussion of the contents of an EIS that
is in Attachment 2 to the 1985
procedures, as well as discussions
regarding documenting impacts to
specific resources, is not included in the
proposed rule. Specifically, proposed
paragraph (e)(2) would emphasize that
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
74649
the draft EIS should identify the OA’s
preferred alternative(s), if one or more
exists, unless in conflict with other
laws; otherwise the OA should provide
agencies and the public with the
opportunity to assess the environmental
consequences of the preferred
alternative prior to issuing a combined
FEIS/ROD, or the OA should provide
the public with an opportunity to
evaluate the preferred alternative during
a waiting period after the publication of
the notice of availability of the FEIS.
Proposed paragraph (f) would require
OAs to comply with document page
limits in accordance with 40 CFR
1502.7. Proposed paragraph (g) would
require that EISs be completed within
two years from NOI to ROD. OAs must
obtain approval from the Assistant
Secretary to exceed this time frame,
consistent with 40 CFR 1501.10(b)(2).
Proposed paragraph (h) would reflect
Departmental policy and CEQ
regulations at 40 CFR 1502.11(g) to
require OAs to include the total cost of
the EIS on the cover page of an FEIS and
a supplemental EIS. The amount
reported would include the entire cost
of the environmental review. Proposed
paragraph (i) would set forth the
requirement to file EISs with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.10 and would
note EPA’s guidance on filing. Proposed
paragraph (j) would address public
notice and notice of availability
requirements consistent with 40 CFR
1506.6. This proposed rule would
remove from Attachment A of Order
5610.1C additional guidance not
required under the CEQ regulations.
Finally, proposed paragraph (k) would
set forth the timing requirements for the
OA’s final decision, including the
ability to reduce or extend time periods.
§ 13.25 Draft Environmental Impact
Statements
As noted in the discussion of
proposed § 13.23, proposed § 13.25
would address requirements specific to
the preparation of DEISs. Proposed
paragraph (a) would encourage early
preparation of the DEIS to ensure that
the decisionmaker can meaningfully
consider the analysis in the
decisionmaking process. 40 CFR 1502.5.
Proposed paragraph (b) would
encourage OAs to indicate in the DEIS
when they intend to issue a combined
FEIS/ROD pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 304a(b)
or 23 U.S.C. 139(n). To ensure
meaningful participation in the
environmental review process, proposed
paragraph (c) would set forth the
specific circulation and request for
comment requirements for DEISs.
Pursuant to the updated CEQ
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
74650
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 226 / Monday, November 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
regulations, an OA must provide for
electronic submission of public
comments as well as ensure that the
comment process is accessible to
affected persons. See 40 CFR 1503.1(c).
§ 13.27 Final Environmental Impact
Statements
As noted in proposed § 13.23,
proposed § 13.27 would address
requirements specific to the preparation
of FEISs and the Department’s unique
statutory authorities. For example,
section 1319(a) of MAP–21 clarified that
the lead agency can issue an FEIS that
consists of ‘‘errata pages’’—rather than a
complete, stand-alone document—if the
agency received only ‘‘minor
comments’’ on the DEIS. This flexibility
existed under the CEQ regulations even
before the enactment of MAP–21;
however, section 1319(a) confirmed that
this format is acceptable. It also required
that errata pages ‘‘(1) cite the sources,
authorities, or reasons that support the
position of the agency’’ and ‘‘(2) if
appropriate, indicate the circumstances
that would trigger agency reappraisal or
further response.’’
In addition, section 1319(b) of MAP–
21 provided authority to issue a
combined FEIS/ROD. The FAST Act
repealed this provision and codified
identical provisions at 49 U.S.C. 304a
and 23 U.S.C. 139. These provisions
direct the Department, when it acts as
the lead agency, to issue the FEIS and
ROD as a single document ‘‘to the
maximum extent practicable,’’ unless (1)
the FEIS makes substantial changes to
the proposed action that are relevant to
environmental or safety concerns; or (2)
there are significant new circumstances
or information relevant to
environmental concerns and the
circumstances or information bears on
the proposed action or the impacts of
the proposed action.
Proposed paragraphs (a) and (b)
address resolution of comments on the
DEIS in the FEIS. Consistent with 40
CFR 1503.4, proposed paragraph (a)
would provide direction on responding
to comments on the DEIS in the FEIS.
Proposed paragraph (b) would provide
for the use of errata sheets consistent
with 49 U.S.C. 304a(a), 23 U.S.C. 139(n),
and 40 CFR 1503.4(c).
Proposed paragraph (c) would
implement the requirements of 49
U.S.C. 304a(b) and 23 U.S.C. 139(n) to
issue a combined FEIS/ROD to the
maximum extent practicable, unless the
FEIS makes substantial changes to the
proposed action that are relevant to
environmental or safety concerns; or
there is a significant new circumstance
or information relevant to
environmental concerns that bears on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 20, 2020
Jkt 253001
the proposed action or the impacts of
the proposed action. When an OA is the
lead agency and there are cooperating
agencies, the cooperating agencies must,
to the extent practicable, issue the FEIS/
ROD jointly with the OA pursuant to 40
CFR 1501.8(b)(8).
To ensure the integration of all
environmental reviews into the NEPA
process, proposed paragraph (d) would
direct the FEIS to reflect compliance or
plans for compliance with other
environmental requirements; should
such compliance not be possible by the
time the FEIS is prepared, proposed
paragraph (d) would direct OAs that the
document should reflect consultation
with the appropriate agencies and
provide reasonable assurance that the
OA can meet the requirements. This
rule would not include section 12 of the
1985 procedures, ‘‘Determinations
Under Section 4(f) of the DOT Act,’’ as
discussion of determinations under
Section 4(f) is outside the scope of the
Department’s NEPA implementing
procedures. Proposed paragraph (e)
would reiterate existing delegations for
approval of FEISs. Proposed paragraph
(f) would set forth the Department’s
policy to notify the Office of Policy for
certain FEISs. Finally, to ensure
meaningful participation in the
environmental review process, proposed
paragraph (g) would address circulation
requirements for the FEIS.
§ 13.29 Records of Decision
This new section would reference
requirements for an OA record of
decision (ROD). Proposed paragraph (a)
would implement the requirements of
49 U.S.C. 304a(b) and 23 U.S.C. 139(n)
to develop a combined FEIS/ROD. This
paragraph would set forth the 30-day
waiting period required by 40 CFR
1506.11(b)(2) in those instances where
the OA determines it is not practicable
within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 304a(b)
and 23 U.S.C. 139(n) to issue a
combined FEIS/ROD. In general, if a
combined FEIS/ROD will not be
prepared, and when the proposal
requires action by multiple Federal
agencies, proposed § 13.29 clarifies that
the OA should issue a single ROD with
the other Federal agencies. Furthermore,
for expediency, proposed § 13.29 would
allow the OA to integrate the ROD into
another record or decision document,
such as a final rule. Proposed paragraph
(b) would set forth the topics to be
addressed in the ROD, including
alternatives, factors balanced in
decisionmaking, and mitigation
measures. Proposed paragraph (c)
includes a requirement that the ROD
provide a certification by the
decisionmaker that the agency has
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
considered all the alternatives,
information, and analyses, and
objections submitted for consideration
by the lead and cooperating agencies in
developing the EIS. FEISs certified in
accordance with 40 CFR 1505.2(b) are
entitled to a presumption that the
agency has considered the submitted
alternatives, information, and analyses
including the summary in the FEIS.
Proposed paragraph (d) would clarify
that the ROD should not repeat the
analysis in the EIS, but should
document the OA’s decision and briefly
discuss compliance with environmental
laws applicable to the action or
procedures, and expected timeframe for
completion of such compliance. Finally,
to reflect the Department’s policy of
using an interdisciplinary approach,
proposed paragraph (e) would allow
OAs to discuss preferences among
alternatives based on relevant economic,
technical, or other factors, and OA
mission and authority.
§ 13.31 Adoption
Proposed § 13.31 would introduce a
new section that is not in the 1985
procedures. This section would address
adoption of NEPA documents pursuant
to the CEQ regulation, 40 CFR 1506.3,
and the Department’s discretionary
adoption authority under 49 U.S.C.
304a(c)(2). Proposed paragraph (a)
would discuss the adoption by OAs of
EISs prepared by a lead agency on an
action for which the OA is a cooperating
agency, in accordance with 40 CFR
1506.3(b)(2)), while proposed paragraph
(b) would provide information on
adoption when the OA is not a
cooperating agency but the action
covered by the original EIS and the
proposed action are substantially the
same, including circulation
requirements, in accordance with 40
CFR 1506.3(b)(1). Proposed paragraph
(c) would cover the full or partial
adoption of EISs when the OA is not a
cooperating agency and the actions
covered are not substantially the same,
in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.3(b).
Where the OA was not a cooperating
agency, proposed paragraphs (b) and (c)
direct the OA to issue a combined FEIS/
ROD consistent with the directive in 49
U.S.C. 304a and 23 U.S.C. 139(n).
Proposed paragraph (d) provides for the
full or partial adoption of an EA.
Proposed paragraph (e) provides for
adoption of a CE determination by
another Federal agency when the action
in the original CE determination and the
proposed action are substantially the
same. When doing so, the OA must
document the adoption consistent with
40 CFR 1506.3(d) and proposed section
13.25(b). Proposed paragraph (f) would
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 226 / Monday, November 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
require re-evaluation of an EIS or EA
that is more than 5 years old prior to its
full or partial adoption, in accordance
with proposed § 13.33 and 40 CFR
1502.9(d)(4). Proposed paragraph (g)
would require filing with the EPA when
an OA adopts and publish an EIS, and
finally, proposed paragraph (h) would
allow an OA to adopt an EA, DEIS, or
FEIS of another OA under 49 U.S.C.
304a(c)(2).
Proposed § 13.35 would address
emergency situations in proposed
paragraph (a) and would provide
mechanisms for NEPA compliance
where the OA anticipates significant
impacts in proposed paragraph (b) or
non-significant impacts in proposed
paragraph (c). In both instances, this
section would provide the internal
coordination process for such
compliance.
§ 13.33 Re-Evaluation and
Supplementation
Consistent with 40 CFR 1502.9(d)(4),
re-evaluation is a longstanding practice
of the Department to determine whether
new information triggers the
requirement to supplement an EIS
pursuant to 40 CFR 1502.9(d). A reevaluation is a continuation of the
project development process, and it
does not necessarily re-open the NEPA
decision. Proposed § 13.33 would
update and clarify the existing practice
for re-evaluation outlined in section 19
of the 1985 procedures, ‘‘Time in Effect
of Statements.’’ In addition, the
Department would revise the interval
for re-evaluation from three to five
years. Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would
encourage the use of re-evaluation when
there are changes to the proposed action
or new circumstances or information
relevant to environmental concerns.
Additionally, proposed paragraph (a)(2)
would require OAs to re-evaluate in
writing DEISs if the OA has not issued
an FEIS within five years of circulation
of the DEIS, and FEISs if major steps
toward implementation have not
commenced within five years of FEIS
approval. Proposed paragraph (b) would
address the CEQ regulatory criteria for
a supplemental EIS, as well as the
discretion to supplement, circulation
requirements for supplemental EISs,
and the process for the approval of an
alternative circulation procedure. 40
CFR 1502.9(d)(1).
§ 13.37 Environmental Impact
Statements for Legislative Proposals
§ 13.35 Emergency Actions
Section 1432 of the FAST Act
provided for exemptions and expedited
procedures for certain environmental
review processes during emergencies.
Specifically, section 1432(b)(1)
references alternative arrangements
under 40 CFR 1506.12. Proposed § 13.35
concerns such alternative arrangements.
This new section would also address the
CEQ regulation on emergencies, 40 CFR
1506.12, and related CEQ guidance.
Finally, this section would build on
section 17(c) of the 1985 procedures,
‘‘Timing of Agency Action,’’, which
details the internal process for
consulting with CEQ concerning
emergencies.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 20, 2020
Jkt 253001
Proposed § 13.37 would address the
requirements for legislative EISs
consistent with 40 CFR 1506.8(c)(2).
Consistent with the general updates set
forth in Section II of this rulemaking,
this proposed section would also
incorporate and revise for clarity the
substance of section 15 of the 1985
procedures, ‘‘Proposals for Legislation,’’
§ 13.39
International Actions
Proposed § 13.39 would address
implementation of Executive Order
12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of
Major Federal Actions addressed in
section 16 of the 1985 procedures,
‘‘International Actions.’’ 4 This section
would streamline the provision by
cross-referencing to the E.O., rather than
repeating its applicability criteria. It also
would direct OAs to prepare any
required EIS consistent with this rule
and OA procedures. Finally, this section
would reflect minor edits for clarity
consistent with the general updates set
forth in Section II of this NPRM.
Appendix A—Appendix A to Part 13—
List of Departmental Categorical
Exclusions
Appendix A would list the existing,
revised, and new departmentwide CEs.
Consistent with the CEQ regulations,
agencies or their subunits may
determine that certain categories of
actions normally do not have significant
environmental impacts and therefore do
not require further review under NEPA.
As discussed in the analysis of proposed
§ 13.17 in Section III of this rulemaking,
this proposed rule would clarify which
categories of activities are categorically
excluded and normally would not
require additional NEPA analysis. The
Department substantiated the proposed
new and revised CEs by reviewing EA
and EIS analyses to identify the
4 This section addresses compliance with the
Executive Order rather than NEPA. The Executive
Order’s requirements were not altered by CEQ’s
revisions to its NEPA regulations. See CEQ, Update
of the Regulations Implementing the Procedural
Provisions of the National Environmental Policy
Act: Final Rule Response to Comments at 551–52
(July 30, 2020).
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
74651
environmental effects of previously
implemented actions, benchmarking
other Federal agencies’ experience
implementing similar categories of
actions, and relying on the judgment
and expertise of the Department’s NEPA
practitioners. The Department notes that
other Federal agencies have established
CEs for activities that are similar in
nature, scope, and effect on the human
environment. The Department provided
for CEQ review the proposed draft
changes and justification for each
proposed change to the list in this
appendix.
Appendix B to Part 13—List of
Categorical Exclusions in Operating
Administration Procedures
Appendix B would provide crossreferences to the OA CEs. The proposal
would incorporate by reference all
current CEs established and maintained
by the OAs for use pursuant to CE #5.
Appendix C to Part 13—Environmental
Requirements for Integration With the
NEPA Process
This rule would direct OAs to
coordinate and integrate all relevant
environmental and planning studies,
reviews, and consultations into their
environmental review process. This
instruction is consistent with MAP–21
sec. 1305, and FAST Act sec. 1304,
which requires the Department to align
the environmental review process and
substantive environmental legal
compliance. To assist the Department’s
NEPA practitioners in harmonizing
these reviews, Appendix C would
provide a non-exhaustive list of the
environmental requirements that should
be integrated with the NEPA process.
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
(a) Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
(Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O.
13563 (Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review), and DOT
Regulations (49 CFR Part 5)
The Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs determined that this
rule is a significant regulatory action
under E.O. 12866, as supplemented by
E.O. 13563, because it is related to the
agency’s implementation of the CEQ
regulations implementing the
procedural requirements of NEPA.
E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 require
agencies to regulate in the ‘‘most costeffective manner,’’ to make a ‘‘reasoned
determination that the benefits of the
intended regulation justify its costs,’’
and to develop regulations that ‘‘impose
the least burden on society.’’. The rule
would implement several changes to
Department policies, procedures, and
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
74652
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 226 / Monday, November 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
internal coordination to streamline
project delivery.
Several provisions are expected to
create one-time de minimis
administrative costs for the Department,
including the requirement that OAs
update their regulations and revise
Department policies and processes to
comply with the provisions in the
regulation. The Department would also
incur ongoing de minimis
administrative costs due to staff time
required by additional internal reporting
and coordination.
The Department expects that the rule
would yield administrative cost savings
as a result of better intra- and
interagency coordination and more
efficient program management within
the Department. The Department
expects that these potential cost savings
from the proposed rule would outweigh
any one-time or ongoing de minimis
administrative costs.
Several provisions could result in
savings:
• Requiring the use, where
appropriate, of coordination tools
including programmatic approaches and
interagency agreements would decrease
required staff time and resources by
shortening review times and by
reducing the duplication of efforts by
the Department and by State and
Federal resource agencies.
• Establishing Departmentwide
internal reporting and coordination
requirements would allow the
Department to allocate resources better
to ensure that the environmental review
process remains on schedule while also
improving the identification of potential
issues earlier in the environmental
review process.
• Setting presumptive NEPA
document page limit provisions and
increasing the timeframe that NEPA
documents remain valid from three to
five years would reduce the
Departmental time and resources
required to develop, issue, or review
NEPA documents.
• Allowing OAs to share CEs would
save Department resources and staff
time by reducing the number of EAs
prepared for categories of projects that
another OA has previously determined
would not normally have a significant
impact on the environment.
• Introducing Departmentwide CEs
that include research activities and
rulemakings would reduce the
administrative costs of conducting those
activities.
• Removing prescriptive EIS contents
that were included in Attachment 2 of
the 1985 procedures would allow
documents to be tailored to use a more
effective format for communication,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 20, 2020
Jkt 253001
thereby saving the Department and
project sponsors time and resources in
document preparation.
Project sponsors may also incur de
minimis costs from the rule, such as
staff time to calculate and provide the
total cost of the environmental review
process on the final environmental
impact statement cover page. However,
the Department expects that project
sponsors would also achieve cost and
time savings in the environmental
review process which would outweigh
these costs. An emphasis on
programmatic approaches and
interagency agreements in this
regulation would save project sponsors
staff time and resources by reducing
environmental impact review times and
by limiting duplicative submissions to
multiple State and Federal agencies.
Additional internal coordination and
reporting requirements would increase
the accountability and transparency of
the environmental review process for
project sponsors, and will allow for
earlier identification and mitigation of
risks that could otherwise slow down
the overall environmental review
process. The Department also expects
that the provisions on page limits and
an increase in the timeframe that NEPA
documents remain valid would allow
for savings in environmental document
preparation.
The Department also expects that
these changes would reduce the time
required for projects to move through
the environmental review process. As a
result, projects may be completed
earlier, and the benefits of
transportation infrastructure
improvements or research would accrue
to the public sooner than they otherwise
would have. The Department expects
that codifying the required online
posting of environmental documents
would also improve the transparency of
the environmental review process for
the public. Finally, shorter
environmental documents would
facilitate reviews by decisionmakers and
the public. The Department has issued
a page limits policy memorandum,
which would support this proposal, and
which encourages using a clear and
concise writing style to meet the page
limits. Such environmental documents
would be easier to read and may make
it easier for the public to understand the
potential environmental impacts of
proposed transportation projects.
(b) E.O. 13771 (Reducing Regulation
and Controlling Regulatory Costs)
This proposed rule is expected to be
an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.
Details on the estimated cost savings of
this proposed rule can be found in the
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
rule’s economic analysis in section
IV(a).
(c) Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
(Pub. L. 96–354, 5 U.S.C. 601–612)
requires an agency to assess the impacts
of proposed and final rules on small
entities unless the agency determines
that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
DOT has evaluated the effects of this
proposed rule on small entities such as
small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
Based on the evaluation, the Department
anticipates that this action would not
have a significant economic impact on
small entities. The proposed rule would
not directly regulate small entities, as
the proposed rule applies to the
Department and sets for its procedures
for implementing the provisions of
NEPA. Accordingly, the Department
certifies that this proposed rule would
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.
(d) E.O. 13132 (Federalism)
E.O. 13132 requires agencies to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that may have a
substantial, direct effect 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. DOT analyzed this
action in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in E.O. 13132.
This NPRM would establish internal
administrative procedures for the DOT
to comply with NEPA. This action will
not have a substantial direct effect or
federalism implications on the States
and would not preempt any State law or
regulation or affect the States’ ability to
discharge traditional State governmental
functions because this proposed rule
applies to the Department, not States.
This action contains no Federal
mandates for State and local
governments and does not impose any
enforceable duties on State and local
governments. Because this action
addresses only internal Department
procedures for implementing NEPA,
consultation with State or local
governments is not necessary. The
Department notes that some states have
voluntarily assumed NEPA
responsibility pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327.
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 226 / Monday, November 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
(e) E.O. 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments)
Pursuant to E.O. 13175, ‘‘Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments,’’ the Department has
assessed the impact of this proposed
rule on Indian tribal governments and
has determined that the proposed rule
would not significantly or uniquely
affect communities of Indian tribal
governments. The proposed rule deals
with administrative procedures for
complying with the requirements of the
NEPA and, as such, has no direct effect
on Indian Tribal governments. Because
the proposed rule does not mandate
Tribal participation in the Department’s
environmental review process, it does
not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on Indian tribal
governments. The proposed rule will
recognize the obligation to and benefit
of including Indian tribes in public
engagement strategies to fulfill relevant
environmental review responsibilities.
Accordingly, the funding and
consultation requirements of Executive
Order 13175 do not apply.
(f) Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires
that DOT consider the impact of
paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the
public and, under the provisions of PRA
section 3507(d), obtain approval from
OMB for each collection of information
it conducts, sponsors, or requires
through regulations. The DOT has
determined that the proposed rule does
not contain a collection-of-information
requirement subject to review and
approval by the OMB under the PRA.
(g) Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Department has determined that
the proposed rule would not impose
unfunded mandates as defined by the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531–
1538). The actions proposed in this
NPRM do not contain any unfunded
mandates as described in the UMRA,
and does not significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. This proposed
rule does not impose any mandates on
small entities. It addresses the
Department’s procedures for
implementing the procedural
requirements of NEPA.
(h) National Environmental Policy Act
The CEQ regulations do not direct
agencies to prepare a NEPA analysis
before establishing agency procedures to
supplement the CEQ regulations to
implement NEPA. See 1507.3;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 20, 2020
Jkt 253001
Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service,
73 F. Supp. 2d 962, 972–73 (S.D. III.
1999), aff’d, 230 F.3d 947, 954–55 (7th
Cir. 2000) (holding that a decision to
issue agency NEPA procedures does not
require analysis and documentation
under NEPA). The Department’s NEPA
procedures assist the Department in
fulfilling its responsibilities under
NEPA and the CEQ regulations, but are
not themselves final determinations of
the level of environmental review
required for particular actions. The
Department also anticipates that this
rulemaking would be categorically
excluded pursuant to the 1985
procedures. Accordingly, the
Department does not anticipate any
environmental impacts from this
proposal, and there are no extraordinary
circumstances present in connection
with this rulemaking.
(i) Regulation Identifier Number
A regulation identifier number (RIN)
is assigned to each regulatory action
listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulations. The Regulatory Information
Service Center publishes the Unified
Agenda in the spring and fall of each
year. The RIN contained in the heading
of this document can be used to cross
reference this action with the Unified
Agenda.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 13
Administrative practice and
procedure, Environmental impact
statements, Environmental protection,
Natural resources.
Issued in Washington, DC, on November 6,
2020.
Elaine L. Chao,
Secretary.
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Office of the Secretary of Transportation
proposes to amend Title 49 of the Code
of Federal Regulations by adding part 13
to read as follows:
Title 49—Transportation
PART 13—ENVIRONMENT REVIEW
PROCESS
Subpart A—General
Sec.
13.1
13.3
13.5
Applicability.
Definitions.
Environmental review policy.
Subpart B—Nepa Review Process
13.7 Managing NEPA compliance.
13.9 Planning and early coordination.
13.11 Lead, cooperating, and participating
agencies.
13.13 General principles for the NEPA
review process.
13.15 Determination of the level of NEPA
review.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
74653
13.17 Categorical Exclusions.
13.19 Environmental Assessments.
13.21 Findings of No Significant Impact.
13.23 Environmental Impact Statements.
13.25 Draft Environmental Impact
Statements.
13.27 Final Environmental Impact
Statements.
13.29 Records of Decision.
13.31 Adoption.
13.33 Re-evaluation and supplementation.
13.35 Emergency actions.
13.37 Environmental Impact Statements for
legislative proposals.
13.39 International actions.
Appendix A to Part 13—List of Departmental
Categorical Exclusions
Appendix B to Part 13—List of Categorical
Exclusions in Operating Administration
Procedures
Appendix C to Part 13—Environmental
Requirements for Integration with the
NEPA Process
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347; 40 CFR
parts 1500–1508; 49 U.S.C. 304; 49 U.S.C.
304a; 49 U.S.C. 310; and E.O. 12114, 44 FR
1957, Jan. 9, 1979, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp.
Subpart A—General
§ 13.1
Applicability.
(a) Pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C.
4321–4347 (NEPA) and the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations implementing NEPA, 40
CFR 1500 through 1508, this part
establishes procedures for the
consideration of environmental impacts
by officials of the Department of
Transportation (Department or DOT) as
part of the decisionmaking process for
DOT actions.
(b) Typical DOT actions may include
grants; construction; regulatory actions;
certifications; licenses; permits; waivers;
approval of policies and plans
(including those submitted to DOT by
State, Tribal, or local agencies, or other
public or private applicants, unless
otherwise exempted); adoption or
implementation of programs; legislation
proposed by DOT; and any renewals or
re-approvals of the foregoing. Consistent
with 40 CFR 1508.1(q), an action is not
subject to NEPA if, for example, it either
does not allow for agency discretion to
consider environmental impacts in
decisionmaking or is not subject to DOT
control and responsibility. Loans, loan
guarantees, or other forms of financial
assistance may be actions subject to
NEPA when the OA exercises sufficient
control and responsibility over the
effects of such assistance.
(c) Consistent with 40 CFR 1501.1,
proposed activities or decisions
expressly exempt from NEPA under
another statute are not actions. For
example, decisions concerning plans,
Transportation Improvement Programs
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
74654
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 226 / Monday, November 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
(TIPs), and Statewide Improvement
Programs (STIPs) are not actions
pursuant to the express exemptions in
23 U.S.C. 134 and 135, respectively.
§ 13.3
Definitions.
The definitions in 40 CFR part 1508
apply to this part. The following
definitions supplement these for the
purposes of this part:
(a) Applicant means an individual;
Federal agency, State, Tribal or local
government; corporation; company; or
any other party seeking an approval,
financial assistance, special permit,
waiver, certification, or other action
from an OA.
(b) Environmental review process
means the integrated process for
compliance with NEPA and any other
applicable environmental statutes,
regulations, or Executive Orders (E.O.),
including those that require a permit,
approval, consultation, or authorization
to proceed with an action.
(c) Level of NEPA review means the
appropriate type of analysis required for
a particular action (i.e., a categorical
exclusion (CE), an environmental
assessment (EA), or an environmental
impact statement (EIS)).
(d) NEPA document means an EIS,
record of decision (ROD), EA, finding of
no significant impact (FONSI), or any
documentation prepared to support the
application of a CE to a proposed action.
(e) Operating Administration (OA)
means any agency established within
the Department, as listed in § 1.3(b) of
this subtitle, or an office within the
Office of the Secretary of Transportation
(OST).
§ 13.5
Environmental review policy.
The policies in paragraphs (a) through
(e) of this section govern the
consideration of environmental impacts
at DOT:
(a) Consistent with NEPA, the
Department will integrate Federal
environmental objectives into the
programs of DOT to ensure the safest,
most efficient and modern
transportation system in the world,
while considering measures to avoid,
minimize, or compensate for adverse
environmental effects wherever
practicable, consistent with other
essential considerations of national
policy.
(b) The Department will strive to
synchronize NEPA and other Federal
environmental requirements and
authorizations into a single, concurrent
environmental review process that
satisfies the requirements of all agencies
with a role in a proposed action,
expedites project delivery, and is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 20, 2020
Jkt 253001
completed within presumptive time
limits.
(c) The Department will apply sound
science, reliable data, and a systematic
interdisciplinary approach to the
environmental review process,
including the use of geographic
information systems, as appropriate.
(d) The Department will maximize the
use of proven strategies to complete the
environmental review process
efficiently, including the use of
electronic collaboration tools;
programmatic agreements and
approaches; and planning processes and
products to inform NEPA requirements
pursuant to applicable laws and
regulations.
(e) The Department encourages
meaningful, proactive, open, and
transparent public participation and
collaboration with affected and
interested stakeholders, including
Federal agencies, States, Tribes,
localities, and the public in its
environmental decision-making process
to avoid, minimize, and compensate for
impacts.
Subpart B—Nepa Review Process
§ 13.7
Managing NEPA compliance.
(a) Responsibility. Pursuant to
§ 1.25a(a)(2) of this subtitle, the
Assistant Secretary for Transportation
Policy (Assistant Secretary) is the senior
agency official who establishes policy
and oversees the implementation of the
NEPA process for the Department. The
Assistant Secretary may determine
which OA will serve as the lead agency
to prepare the NEPA document for all
actions taken by the Department for a
proposed activity or project.
(b) Office of Policy. The OST Office of
Policy Development, Strategic Planning,
and Performance (Office of Policy)
oversees NEPA implementation and
compliance with related environmental
requirements, and OAs must consult
with or notify the Office of Policy as set
forth in this part. The Office of Policy
in turn will coordinate with the Office
of the General Counsel to ensure
compliance with legal requirements.
Additional information on the
environmental review process may be
obtained from the Office of Policy.
(c) Office of the General Counsel. The
Office of the General Counsel (OGC)
provides counsel to the Department
concerning the interpretation of and
compliance with NEPA, the CEQ
regulations, this part, and other
applicable laws. Where appropriate,
OGC determines the legal sufficiency of
the Department’s NEPA documents and
coordinates with the OAs and the
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Department of Justice on NEPA-related
litigation.
(d) Applicability. This part
supplements the regulations at 40 CFR
parts 1500 through 1508, setting forth
procedures specific to DOT actions. The
OAs must comply with the regulations
at 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508, this
part, and their own NEPA implementing
procedures, as applicable.
(e) OA Procedures. Each OA must
issue or modify NEPA implementing
procedures (OA Procedures), consistent
with this part, 40 CFR parts 1500
through 1508, and any other applicable
laws or regulations, that establish
requirements for and provide guidance
on integrating the environmental review
process into the OA’s programs and
actions. To the extent applicants carry
out the OA’s responsibilities under OA
Procedures (where appropriate and in
compliance with 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(D)
and 40 CFR 1506.5), the OA must
require the applicants to comply with
the OA Procedures.
(1) OA procedures should include a
list of actions that are not subject to
NEPA. (See 40 CFR 1507.3(d));
(2) OA procedures must include lists
of actions that normally require the
preparation of an EIS or EA (40 CFR
1507.3(e)(2)(i) and (iii)); include lists of
categorically excluded actions and
extraordinary circumstances (40 CFR
1507.3(e)(2)(ii)) and note which
categorical exclusions require
documentation 40 CFR 1507.3(e)(2)(ii));
identify when it might be appropriate to
use tiering and programmatic
approaches to facilitate an efficient
environmental review (40 CFR 1501.11
and 1508.1(ff)); ensure that decisions are
made in accordance with NEPA’s policy
and procedures (40 CFR 1507.3(c));
describe the public participation
process; describe the process to ensure
early involvement of interested parties
(40 CFR 1501.2(b)(4)); identify where
interested parties can find information
about the NEPA process, including
NEPA documents (40 CFR 1506.6(e));
and describe the procedures for
ensuring implementation of mitigation
measures committed to in NEPA
documents (40 CFR 1501.6(c), 1505.3,
and 1508.1(s)).
(3) OAs must submit proposals for
new or revised implementing
procedures to the Office of Policy and
the OGC for review and concurrence
prior to CEQ consultation and
publication in the Federal Register.
These offices will assist with CEQ
consultation. The Office of Policy and
the OGC will provide written
concurrence on the final new or revised
implementing procedures. OAs must
provide notice of proposed new or
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 226 / Monday, November 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
revised implementing procedures in the
Federal Register for public comment
and provide notice of final new or
revised implementing procedures.
(4) No later than 30 days of the
effective date of this part, OAs must
evaluate their OA procedures to develop
a plan and schedule to make revisions
necessary to achieve consistency with
40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508 and
this part. OAs must submit this
determination or plan to the Office of
Policy and the OGC for concurrence.
Consistent with 40 CFR 1507.3(b), OAs
must, as necessary, develop or revise
proposed procedures no later than
September 14, 2021.
(5) Subject to 40 CFR 1507.3(a), to the
extent an OA’s existing procedures are
inconsistent with 40 CFR parts 1500
through 1508, the regulations in 40 CFR
parts 1500 through 1508 apply,
consistent with 40 CFR 1506.13, unless
there is a clear and fundamental conflict
with the requirements of another
statute. An OA may choose to apply 40
CFR parts 1500 through 1508 or the
procedures of this part to a review
begun before September 14, 2020, or the
effective date of this part, respectively.
§ 13.9
Planning and early coordination.
(a) Timing. OAs should begin the
environmental review process at the
earliest practicable time in the planning
or development of an action.
(1) OAs should integrate the NEPA
process with other processes at the
earliest reasonable time to ensure that
planning and decisions reflect
environmental values and avoid
potential conflicts that may delay the
process. (40 CFR 1501.2). For actions,
likely to require an EA or EIS, OAs must
engage in early identification and
evaluation of the purpose and need; the
environmental impacts; reasonable
alternatives (as further described in
§ 13.19(b) for EAs and § 13.23(a)(2) for
EISs); and measures to avoid, minimize,
or compensate for adverse
environmental impacts, as appropriate.
(2) Unless otherwise provided by law,
prior to making a final NEPA
determination on a proposed action,
OAs must not take any action
concerning the proposal that would
have an adverse environmental impact
or limit the choice of reasonable
alternatives. (40 CFR 1506.1(a), 1502.2(f)
and (g)). If an OA becomes aware an
applicant is about to take an action that
would have an adverse environmental
impact or limit the choice of reasonable
alternatives, the OA must promptly
notify the applicant and the Assistant
Secretary, and take appropriate action to
ensure that the objectives and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 20, 2020
Jkt 253001
procedures of NEPA are achieved. (40
CFR 1506.1(b)).
(b) Coordination with applicants. OAs
must ensure that applicants are aware of
the environmental analysis and review
requirements in this part.
(c) Coordination with other agencies.
OAs must coordinate with other OAs,
Federal, State, Tribal, and local resource
and regulatory agencies, stakeholders,
and the public, as appropriate, to satisfy
their responsibilities under NEPA and
other relevant statutes, regulations, and
Executive Orders, such as those listed in
Appendix C of this part. OAs should
communicate early and continually, and
coordinate to identify and resolve
issues. OAs may prioritize actions and
improve early coordination with
regulatory and resource agencies by
executing interagency agreements such
as Memoranda of Understanding
(MOUs), Memoranda of Agreement
(MOAs), or Programmatic Agreements,
and using other tools at their disposal.
(d) Use of planning analysis and
decisions in the NEPA process. OAs
should, as appropriate, integrate, adopt,
and use planning information or
decisions in the NEPA process.
(e) Early coordination. The scoping
process (40 CFR 1501.9) is a tool for
early coordination that OAs must use in
the preparation of an EIS in accordance
with § 13.23(c) and may use in the
preparation of an EA to identify any
significant issues and ensure that all
interested or affected persons have an
opportunity to participate early in the
process. As part of scoping, OAs should
use early coordination tools, such as
planning, interagency working groups or
agreements, programmatic approaches,
coordination plans, and project
schedules. OAs should use such tools
prior to issuing the notice of intent.
§ 13.11 Lead, cooperating, and
participating agencies.
(a) Lead agency. An OA with primary
responsibility for a proposed action,
including a multimodal transportation
project, generally will serve as the lead
agency for preparing and processing
EISs and EAs, where appropriate, and is
responsible for inviting other agencies
to serve as cooperating agencies or
otherwise participate in the NEPA
process. (See 40 CFR 1501.7). When an
OA serves as lead agency, it is
responsible for the scope, objectivity,
accuracy, and content of the NEPA
documents and ensuring completion of
the environmental review process.
When more than one OA is involved in
an action, the OAs should determine
together their respective roles (i.e., lead
agency, joint lead agency, or cooperating
agency) early in the process. However,
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
74655
if the OAs cannot agree on this
determination within 30 days, they
must consult the Office of Policy, which
will resolve the dispute. The lead
agency must:
(1) Request participation of
cooperating agencies in the NEPA
process at the earliest practicable time;
(2) Meet with a cooperating agency at
the latter’s request;
(3) To the extent practicable prepare
a single environmental document and
joint FONSI or ROD for the lead and
cooperating agencies;
(4) Use environmental analysis and
proposals from cooperating agencies
with jurisdiction by law or special
expertise to the maximum extent
practicable;
(5) Determine the scope and the
significant issues to be analyzed in
depth in an EIS;
(6) Determine the purpose and need
and range of alternatives in consultation
with the cooperating agencies;
(7) Create and update as necessary the
project schedule in consultation with
the cooperating agencies; and
(8) Notify the Office of Policy if a
milestone will be missed and elevate
issues to the Assistant Secretary for
timely resolution. (See 40 CFR 1501.7).
(b) Joint lead agencies. An OA serving
as a joint lead agency assumes the same
roles, responsibilities, and authority as
a single lead agency.
(c) Cooperating agencies. When
serving as a lead or joint lead agency,
OAs should identify and request
Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies
that have jurisdiction by law or special
expertise to be cooperating agencies
under 40 CFR 1501.8 and 1508.1(e).
When an OA serves as a cooperating
agency, it must fulfill its responsibilities
in coordination with the lead agency.
(1) If another agency declines an OA’s
invitation to participate as a cooperating
agency, the OA must still provide the
declining agency with a copy of the
NEPA document and should attempt to
coordinate with it to avoid potential
issues that could delay the action. If that
agency raises concerns or indicates that
it may delay or withhold action on some
aspect of the proposed action, the OA
should initiate a conflict resolution
process in accordance with § 13.13(e).
(2) When an agency requests an OA to
serve as a cooperating agency, the OA
must accept and participate if it has
jurisdiction by law, and should make
every practicable effort to accept and
participate if it has special expertise.
(3) If another agency fails to invite an
OA to serve as a cooperating agency
when it has jurisdiction by law or
special expertise, the OA should ask the
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
74656
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 226 / Monday, November 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
evaluation of alternatives and their
potential environmental consequences.
(See 40 CFR 1501.5(c) and 1502.6).
Analyses should identify applicable
methodology and explain the use of best
available information. Where
appropriate, OAs may use professional
services from other Federal, State,
Tribal, or local agencies, universities,
consulting firms, or other experts;
however, OA staff must have the
capacity to evaluate the information
these entities provide, and OAs must
take responsibility for the final content
of their NEPA documents. (See 40 CFR
1506.5 and 1507.2).
(e) Conflict resolution.
§ 13.13 General principles for the NEPA
(1) Resolution of disputes. OAs
review process.
should seek to resolve expeditiously all
(a) Integration of all environmental
disputes as early as possible in the
reviews into the NEPA process. To the
NEPA process consistent with
maximum extent practicable and at the
applicable requirements. OAs should
earliest possible time, OAs should
communicate and collaborate to
integrate all relevant environmental
recognize and resolve disputes as they
reviews, authorizations, and
arise to maintain constructive
consultations into the NEPA process. A
relationships among all parties,
list of authorities under which these
including other OAs, Federal or State
may be conducted can be found in
agencies, Tribes, and members of the
Appendix C of this part. To the extent
public in accordance with 40 CFR parts
practicable, OAs should develop a
1500 to 1508, DOT Order 5611.1a and
single NEPA document for all Federal
applicable CEQ/Office of Management
agency actions necessary for a proposed and Budget guidance. OAs must report
activity or project. (See 40 CFR
on their use of formal environmental
1501.7(g)).
conflict resolution in annual reports to
(b) Incorporation by reference. OAs
the Office of Policy and OGC’s Office of
should incorporate by reference
Operations on Environmental
previously prepared and publicly
Collaboration and Conflict Resolution
available analyses wherever possible
(ECCR). OAs must notify CEQ and
and provide a brief summary of the
obtain CEQ concurrence, as necessary,
incorporated material in a NEPA
to use the John S. McCain III National
document. (See 40 CFR 1501.12). Types Center for Environmental Conflict
of documents that may be incorporated
Resolution (20 U.S.C. 5607b(c)).
by reference include previously
(2) Pre-decisional referrals to CEQ.
The following procedures apply to
prepared studies, analyses, and, to the
extent permitted by law, decisions from referrals to CEQ under 40 CFR part
1504:
prior environmental reviews. (See 40
(i) Referrals on DOT actions. If
CFR 1501.12).
(c) Focused, quality documents. NEPA another Federal agency advises an OA
that it intends to make a referral to CEQ,
documents should effectively and
the OA must coordinate with the Office
concisely communicate the
of Policy. The OA should make a
environmental effects of a proposed
concerted, timely effort to resolve issues
action to the public and the
raised by another Federal agency with
decisionmaker. NEPA documents
should be written in plain language, and respect to an EIS for a proposed DOT
action to avoid a referral to CEQ. The
be analytic rather than encyclopedic.
(See 40 CFR 1500.4(d), 1502.2(a) and (c), OA should document these efforts in the
project record.
and 1502.8). The depth and scope of
(ii) DOT referrals to CEQ on other
analysis and resulting documentation
agency proposals. Whenever possible,
must be meaningful, high-quality,
OAs should make efforts to resolve
relevant, and proportionate to the
issues informally to avoid referrals to
complexity of the action and degree of
CEQ. If the issues are not resolved prior
anticipated environmental effects and
to filing the final EIS (FEIS) with EPA,
the affected environment (See 1501.3,
the OA Administrator must obtain
1501.5, 1502.2(b), and 1502.23).
concurrence from the Office of Policy
(d) Interdisciplinary approach. OAs
and OGC to make a referral to CEQ.
must use an interdisciplinary approach
Referrals should include all content
throughout the planning and
specified in 40 CFR 1504.3(c). The OA
preparation of EISs and EAs, as
should notify the Office of Policy as
applicable, and ensure a systematic
lead agency to extend an invitation to
participate as a cooperating agency.
(4) The OA must cooperate on
schedule development and elevate
issues that may affect the schedule to
the senior agency official for resolution
consistent with 40 CFR 1501.8(b)(6) and
(7).
(d) Participating agencies. OAs
should invite other agencies (including
other Federal, State, Tribal, or local
agencies) that may have an interest in
the proposed action to be participating
agencies. OAs should invite such other
agencies as early as possible (before or
during scoping).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 20, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
early as possible that a referral is
anticipated. OAs must make formal
referrals to CEQ no later than 25
calendar days after EPA publishes the
notice of availability of the EIS or the
lead agency makes an EA available.
(f) Tiering and programmatic
approaches. OAs should use tiering (see
40 CFR 1501.11 and 1508.1(ff)) to
improve or simplify the environmental
analysis of proposed DOT actions that
are similar in nature, broad in scope, or
where future decisions or unknown
future conditions preclude a complete
NEPA analysis. This would eliminate
repetitive discussions of the same
issues, focus on issues ripe for decision
and exclude from consideration issues
already decided or not yet ripe at each
level. OAs should also use
programmatic approaches, where
appropriate, including resource or
regional specific programmatic
agreements or consultations with
resource or regulatory agencies. Where
possible, OAs should develop
programmatic approaches that cover the
activities of multiple OAs.
(g) Mitigation and monitoring. The
ROD and FONSI must identify those
mitigation measures that avoid,
minimize, or compensate for effects
caused by a proposed action or
alternatives as described in an
environmental document and that have
a nexus to those effects that the lead
agency is adopting and committing to
implement, including any monitoring
and enforcement program applicable to
such mitigation commitments.
(1) The OA must take steps to ensure
that the mitigation measures committed
to in the ROD and FONSI are
implemented. For third-party actions, to
the extent practicable, OAs must
condition relevant funding agreements,
permits, licenses, and other approvals
on the performance of the mitigation
commitments. Methods of enforcement
of commitments may include
withdrawal of funding, permit, license,
or approval, and any other action
deemed necessary by the appropriate
OA.
(2) Where legal authority exists, OAs
may provide for monitoring to ensure
their decisions are carried out and
should do so in important cases. In
determining when monitoring
mitigation commitments is appropriate,
OAs should apply professional
judgment and the rule of reason. (40
CFR 1505.3).
(h) Public involvement. Public
involvement provides an opportunity
for the public to consider, offer input
on, and inform proposed actions, their
potential environmental impacts, and
proposed mitigation. The level of public
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 226 / Monday, November 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
involvement should be commensurate
with the type of action proposed and its
potential to cause significant impacts,
and be consistent with 40 CFR
1501.5(e), 1501.9, 1503.1(a)(2)(v), and
1506.6.
(1) Public involvement in
environmental analyses is important at
each appropriate stage of the
development of a proposed action, and
OAs should seek public involvement as
early as possible. Consistent with 40
CFR 1500.3(b), 1500.4(n), and 1503.3,
OAs should ensure commenters are
invited to submit specific comments as
early in the process as possible, and
provide notice that comments not
submitted shall be forfeited as
unexhausted. OAs should integrate
public involvement in the NEPA
process, as applicable, with other public
involvement processes (e.g., 54 U.S.C.
306108 (Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended), State requirements) to the
fullest extent practicable. Methods to
solicit the views of the public include
public workshops or meetings; hearings
in traditional or non-traditional formats
and locations; social media; new
technologies; advertisements or notices
in print or electronic media; and other
appropriate means tailored to reach the
relevant audiences. (See 40 CFR 1506.6).
When OAs provide for public comment,
they must include electronic submission
of comments, with reasonable measures
to ensure the comment process is
accessible to affected persons. (See 40
CFR 1503.1(c)).
(2) To allow the public to efficiently
and effectively access information about
NEPA reviews, OAs must make NEPA
documents, relevant notices and other
relevant information for use by
interested persons available online in a
manner consistent with 40 CFR
1506.6(e) and 1507.4. Appropriate
domains for publication may include
Department/OA operated websites or
project-specific websites. When posted
on a DOT website, NEPA documents
must be compliant with the
requirements of 29 U.S.C. 794d (section
508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended).
(i) Use of contractors. Decisionmaking
under NEPA is an inherently
governmental function. OAs may use
contractors to assist in the preparation
of NEPA documents, but must require
contractors to comply with this part and
OA procedures, and follow relevant
guidance. OAs must furnish guidance,
participate in the preparation of, and
independently evaluate NEPA
documents, taking responsibility for
their accuracy, scope, and contents. (See
40 CFR 1506.5).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 20, 2020
Jkt 253001
(1) When an OA acts as the lead
agency and uses a contractor, it may
select the contractor for preparation of
an EIS or EA, consistent 40 CFR 1506.5.
The OA may select the contractor in
cooperation with cooperating agencies.
(2) Prior to entering into a contract for
the preparation of an EIS or EA, the OA
must require the contractor or applicant
to execute a disclosure statement
specifying any financial or other interest
if applicable, or stating it has no
financial or other interests in the
outcome of the proposed action. (40
CFR 1506.5).
(j) Tracking. OAs must track and
report environmental review milestones
in compliance with DOT tracking
procedures and other applicable
requirements. Consistent with 23 U.S.C.
139(o) and all reporting standards
issued by the Office of Policy, OAs must
post information for all transportation
infrastructure projects requiring an EA
or EIS, including applicable NEPA and
any permitting or authorization actions
and associated milestones, to the
publicly accessible Permitting
Dashboard. OAs must post and update
information as necessary within
timeframes established by the reporting
standards.
§ 13.15 Determination of the level of NEPA
review.
(a) To determine the appropriate level
of NEPA review, OAs must establish the
appropriate scope (using the criteria for
scope in 40 CFR 1501.9(e)) of the
proposed action.
(b) To ensure meaningful and
objective evaluation of alternatives,
where applicable, and avoid
commitments to proposed actions before
they are fully evaluated, OAs must
ensure that the scope of the proposed
action evaluated in an EA, EIS, or CE
includes connected actions; has
independent utility or independent
significance (e.g., would be a usable and
reasonable expenditure even if no
additional transportation improvements
in the area are made); does not
unreasonably restrict consideration of
alternatives for other reasonably
foreseeable actions; and where
applicable, connects logical termini.
(c) In considering whether the effects
of the proposed action are significant,
agencies must analyze the potentially
affected environment and degree of the
effects of the action. Agencies should
consider connected actions consistent
with § 1501.9(e)(1). In considering the
degree of the effects, agencies should
consider the following, as appropriate to
the specific action, where the effects are
reasonably foreseeable and have a
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
74657
reasonably close causal relationship to
the proposed action:
(1) Both short- and long-term effects.
(2) Both beneficial and adverse
effects.
(3) Effects on public health and safety.
(4) Effects that would violate Federal,
State, Tribal, or local law protecting the
environment. (See 40 CFR 1501.3(b)).
(d) If there is an unresolved
disagreement between the OA and an
applicant regarding the appropriate
level of NEPA review, the OA must
notify the Office of Policy, to assist in
making the determination.
§ 13.17
Categorical Exclusions.
(a) Application of a Categorical
Exclusion (CE). CEs are categories of
actions that normally do not have a
significant effect on the environment,
and therefore normally do not require
the preparation of an EA or EIS. (40 CFR
1501.4). Appendix A of this part lists
Departmentwide CEs. An ‘‘*’’ is used to
indicate the CEs that would not require
documentation. OA Procedures may
identify additional CEs, consistent with
§ 13.7(d); Appendix B of this part
identifies the location of CEs established
in each of the Department’s OA
Procedures and incorporates those CEs
by reference. Paragraph (b) of this
section lists extraordinary
circumstances (40 CFR 1501.4), that
OAs must consider before determining
that a CE listed in Appendix A of this
part applies to a proposed action. If an
OA seeks to apply a CE established in
another OA’s procedures (referenced in
Appendix B of this part), it must
evaluate the action for extraordinary
circumstances identified in the OA
Procedures in which the CE is
established 5 to determine if a normally
excluded action may have a significant
effect. If an extraordinary circumstance
is present, an OA may nevertheless
apply a CE listed in Appendix A of this
part to an action if the OA determines
that there are circumstances that lessen
the impacts or other conditions
sufficient to avoid significant effects. If
the OA cannot apply the CE to the
proposed action, it must prepare an EA
or EIS, as appropriate.
(b) Extraordinary circumstances. With
respect to the CEs listed in Appendix A
of this part, extraordinary circumstances
include:
(1) Inconsistency with any applicable
Federal, State, Tribal, or local law,
requirement, or administrative
determination relating to the protection
of the environment;
5 For the purposes of 23 CFR part 771, ‘‘unusual
circumstances’’ is synonymous with ‘‘extraordinary
circumstances.’’
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
74658
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 226 / Monday, November 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
(2) Substantial increases of noise in a
noise-sensitive area;
(3) Substantial adverse effects that are
reasonably foreseeable on the following
aspects of the environment:
(i) Species listed or proposed to be
listed on the List of Endangered or
Threatened Species, or designated
Critical Habitat for these species, as
promulgated under 16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(1);
(ii) Properties protected under 54
U.S.C. 306108 (Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended);
(iii) Properties protected under 23
U.S.C. 138 or 49 U.S.C. 303 (Section
4(f));
(iv) A site that involves a unique
characteristic of the geographic area,
such as prime or unique agricultural
land, a coastal zone, a historic or
cultural resource, park land, wetland,
wild and scenic river, designated
wilderness or wilderness study area,
sole source aquifer (potential sources of
drinking water), or an ecologically
critical area; or
(v) Applicable Federal, State, or local
air quality standards, including those
under the Clean Air Act, as amended
(42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.);
(4) Substantial short- or long-term
increases in traffic congestion or traffic
volumes on any mode of transportation
that are reasonably foreseeable; or
(5) Substantial impacts on the
environment resulting from the
reasonably foreseeable, reportable
release of hazardous or toxic substances.
(c) Multimodal projects. For
multimodal projects, as defined by 23
U.S.C. 139(a), an OA may use the
process created under 49 U.S.C. 304 for
the application of another OA’s CE for
that project.
§ 13.19
Environmental Assessments.
(a) When to prepare an environmental
assessment. An OA must prepare an EA
when a proposed action is not
categorically excluded and a
determination whether to prepare an
EIS has not been made or it is required
under OA Procedures; or a normally
categorically excluded action may
involve significant environmental
impacts, but does not clearly require the
preparation of an EIS. However, an OA
need not prepare an EA if it determines
that an EIS is necessary or preferable.
(See 40 CFR 1501.5 and 1508.1(h)).
Examples of typical classes of actions
that normally require an EA but not
necessarily an EIS are listed in OA
Procedures.
(b) Contents. An EA must include the
purpose and need for the proposal; a
description of the proposed action and
alternative(s) as required by 42 U.S.C.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 20, 2020
Jkt 253001
4332(2)(E) (section 102(2)(E) of NEPA),
as well as the ‘‘no action’’ alternative;
the environmental impacts of the
proposed action and alternatives; and
the agencies and persons consulted.
(c) Page limits. EAs must be no more
than 75 pages unless a senior agency
official approves in writing an EA to
exceed 75 pages and establishes a new
page limit. OAs must obtain approval
from an OA Administrator when the
Administrator has been designated as a
senior agency official for the OA or, for
OST actions, the Assistant Secretary if
an EA is anticipated to exceed the page
limits. An EA should be as concise as
possible while proportional to the
magnitude of the proposed action and
anticipated impacts.
(d) Time limits: EAs should be
completed within one year from the
agency’s’ determination to prepare an
EA. If during development of the EA,
the OA concludes that there will be
significant impacts, the OA should issue
an NOI and the time limits for EISs
would apply. OAs must obtain approval
from an OA Administrator when the
Administrator has been designated as a
senior agency official for the OA or, for
OST actions, the Assistant Secretary if
an EA needs a longer time period than
one year. This request must be in
writing and provide a reasonable
timeframe for the OA to complete the
EA. 40 CFR 1501.10(a)(1).
(e) Alternatives. The EA must include
the alternatives the OA will consider in
its decisionmaking, which may be
limited to the proposed action and no
action alternative to the extent
consistent with applicable authority
including NEPA Section 102(2)(E). The
EA should address alternatives to a
degree commensurate with the nature of
the proposed action and OA experience
with the environmental issues involved.
The EA should indicate a preferred
alternative, if the OA identified one. For
alternatives considered and eliminated
from further study, an EA should briefly
explain why they were eliminated.
(f) Compliance with other applicable
environmental laws, regulations and
orders. In accordance with § 13.13(a),
the EA should reflect compliance or
plans for compliance with the
requirements of other applicable
environmental laws, regulations, and
orders, such as those listed in Appendix
C of this part.
(g) Independent evaluation. If an
applicant prepares an EA, the OA must
independently evaluate the
environmental issues and take
responsibility for the accuracy, scope,
and contents of the EA. (40 CFR
1506.5(b)(2)).
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(h) Public comment. An OA must
involve the public, State, Tribal and
local governments, relevant agencies,
and any applicants to the extent
practicable in the development of the
EA. (40 CFR 1501.5(e)). At its discretion,
an OA may prepare a draft EA for public
comment. When an OA prepares a draft
EA for public comment, it must
consider substantive comments received
on a draft EA in the final EA or FONSI.
An OA must make EAs available to the
public. (See 40 CFR 1506.6(b)). In the
circumstances defined in 40 CFR
1501.6(a)(2), a copy of the EA should be
made available to the public for a period
of not less than 30 days before the
FONSI is made and the action is
implemented.
§ 13.21
Findings of No Significant Impact.
(a) Contents. A FONSI must briefly
explain why a proposed action analyzed
in an EA will not have a significant
impact on the environment and
therefore does not require the
preparation of an EIS. (40 CFR 1501.6).
A FONSI must include the EA or
summarize it and incorporate the EA by
reference, and must note any other
related NEPA documents. (See 40 CFR
1501.6(b) and 1501.9(f)(3)). An OA must
make the FONSI available to the public
as specified in 40 CFR 1506.6(b) and
consistent with 40 CFR 1507.4 and OA
Procedures.
(b) Mitigated FONSIs. In accordance
with § 13.13(g), an OA may rely on
mitigation measures to reduce
potentially significant adverse impacts
below the level of significance that
would trigger the preparation of an EIS.
To use this approach, the OA must:
(1) Describe in the FONSI the
mitigation measures necessary to reduce
the potential impacts to a level below
significance;
(2) Ensure that sufficient legal
authority and an adequate commitment
of resources exist to execute the
mitigation measures, including funding
as necessary;
(3) Ensure that the articles of
agreement, award or grant agreement,
permit, license, authorization, or other
document reflecting the OA’s final
decision on the action will require
implementation of the mitigation
measures;
(4) Ensure that any monitoring
strategies described in the FONSI will
be adopted when the OA deems them
appropriate for the particular action and
set of mitigation measures. This may
include making an applicant
responsible for implementing the
monitoring strategies. Environmental
Management Systems may be used for
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 226 / Monday, November 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
tracking and monitoring mitigation
commitments; and
(5) Provide for corrective action,
where appropriate, in the event of a
failure to implement the mitigation
measures or a failure in the effectiveness
of the mitigation measures.
§ 13.23
Environmental Impact Statements.
(a) When to prepare an EIS. An OA
must prepare an EIS for any proposed
major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human
environment (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
Examples of typical actions that
normally require an EIS are listed in OA
Procedures.
(b) Notice of Intent. To initiate an EIS,
the OA must publish a notice of intent
(NOI) to prepare an EIS in the Federal
Register (40 CFR 1501.9(d) and
1508.1(u)).
(c) Scoping. The OA must determine
the scope of and the significant issues
to be analyzed in depth in the EIS, and
it must identify and eliminate from
detailed study the issues that are not
significant or covered by prior
environmental review (40 CFR
1501.9(f)(1); see also 40 CFR 1506.3 and
1508.1(cc)). To determine significance,
the OA must evaluate the potentially
affected environment and the degree of
the effects of the proposed action. See
Section 13.15(c).
(d) EISs impacts on another State or
a Federal land management entity.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(D) (NEPA
Section 102(2)(D)), where a State agency
or official with statewide jurisdiction
initiates a proposed action that may
have significant impacts on any other
State or a Federal land management
entity, the OA must provide early notice
to and solicit the views of those State or
Federal land management entities.
(e) Format and content. The format of
the EIS must be consistent with the
format provided at 40 CFR 1502.10,
unless the OA determines there is a
more effective format for
communication that encourages good
analysis and clear presentation of
alternatives, and include the following:
A cover (40 CFR 1502.11); a summary
(40 CFR 1502.12); a table of contents (40
CFR 1502.10(a)(3)); a list of preparers
(40 CFR 1502.18); and appendices (40
CFR 1502.19), if the OA prepares any.
The EIS must include the following:
(1) Purpose and need. The EIS must
briefly describe the underlying purpose
and need for the proposed action. (40
CFR 1502.13).
(2) Alternatives. Consistent with 40
CFR 1502.14 and 1508.1(z), the OA
must evaluate reasonable alternatives,
including the proposed action and the
no action alternative, and a reasonable
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 20, 2020
Jkt 253001
range of alternatives that are technically
and economically feasible, meet the
purpose and need for the proposed
action, and, where applicable, meet the
goals of the applicant. The OA should
present the environmental impacts of
the proposal and alternatives in
comparative form. The OA should limit
consideration to a reasonable number
and reasonable range of alternatives.
The EIS must identify alternatives
considered but eliminated from detailed
analysis and briefly discuss the reasons
for their exclusion. The Draft EIS (DEIS)
should identify the OA’s preferred
alternative or alternatives, if one or
more exists, unless in conflict with
other laws. If the DEIS did not identify
the preferred alternative, the OA should
provide agencies and the public with an
opportunity to assess the environmental
consequences of the preferred
alternative prior to issuing a combined
FEIS/ROD, or the OA should provide for
a waiting period consistent with
paragraph (k)(1) of this section. The
FEIS or combined FEIS/ROD must
identify the preferred alternative or
alternatives unless the requirements of
another statute provide otherwise.
(3) Affected environment. The EIS
must succinctly describe the
environment of the area(s) affected or
created by the alternatives under
consideration, including the reasonably
foreseeable environmental trends and
planned actions in the area(s). Data and
analyses must be commensurate with
the importance of the impact. (40 CFR
1502.15).
(4) Environmental consequences. The
EIS must discuss the environmental
consequences of the proposal and the
alternatives. The EIS must describe both
beneficial and adverse environmental
impacts of the proposed action and
reasonable alternatives and the
significance of those impacts. The EIS
also must describe any adverse
environmental impacts that cannot be
avoided if the proposal is adopted, the
relationship between short-term uses of
the environment and long-term
productivity, any irreversible or
irretrievable commitments of resources
that would occur, and other
requirements of 40 CFR 1502.16(a)(1)
through (10).
(5) Mitigation. The EIS must discuss
appropriate measures for mitigating
adverse environmental impacts of the
proposed action or alternatives. (See 40
CFR 1502.14(e), 1502.16(a)(9), and
1508.1(s)).
(6) Summary of submitted
alternatives, information, and analyses.
The EIS must include a summary that
identifies all alternatives, information,
and analyses submitted by State, Tribal,
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
74659
and local governments and other public
commenters during the scoping process
for consideration by the lead and
cooperating agencies in developing the
EIS. The OA should either append to
the EIS or otherwise publish all
comments that were received during the
scoping process that identified
alternatives, information, and analyses
for the OA’s consideration. The FEIS
must include a summary that identifies
all alternatives, information, and
analyses submitted by State, Tribal, and
local governments and other public
commenters for consideration by the
lead and cooperating agencies in
developing the FEIS. (See 40 CFR
1502.17).
(f) Page limits. The text of the EIS set
forth in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of
this section must be 150 pages or less,
and 300 pages or less for proposed
actions of unusual scope or complexity.
OAs must obtain approval from the
Assistant Secretary if an EIS is
anticipated to exceed the page limits.
(See 40 CFR 1502.7 and 1508.1(v)).
(g) Time limits. EISs must be
completed within two years from the
date of publication of the NOI. OAs
must obtain approval from the Assistant
Secretary if an EIS will require a longer
time period than two years from NOI to
ROD. This request must be in writing
and provide a reasonable timeframe for
the OA to complete the EIS. (40 CFR
1501.10(b)(2)).
(h) Document cost. The OA must
include the total cost (Federal and nonFederal) of the EIS on the cover page of
the FEIS and Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS),
which includes the entire cost of the
environmental review to the extent
practicable. (See 40 CFR 1502.11(g)).
(i) Filing with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. OAs must file EISs
with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) when they are
transmitted to commenting agencies and
made available to the public, or
immediately thereafter. (40 CFR
1506.10). OAs must file EISs with EPA
in accordance with EPA filing guidance.
(j) Public notice and notice of
availability. OAs should notify the
public of the availability of EISs through
methods such as online notices, social
media, direct notification to interested
parties, and notices in local media so as
to inform those persons and agencies
who may be interested or affected by the
proposed action. (See 40 CFR 1506.6(b)).
OAs must consider the ability of
affected persons and agencies to access
electronic media in providing public
notice of NEPA-related opportunities for
public involvement. OAs must notify
those parties who have requested notice
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
74660
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 226 / Monday, November 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
on an individual action. In the case of
an action with impacts of national
concern, notice must include
publication in the Federal Register
(through EPA’s notice of availability of
EISs or a separate notice) and notice by
email, mail, or other reasonable means
to organizations, agencies, and those
persons reasonably expected to be
interested or affected by the proposed
action. Although electronic distribution
is preferred, the OA should make
documents available in other formats
when reasonably necessary and must
make available hard copies of the EIS
upon request. The OA must make the
EIS available to the public without
charge to the fullest extent practicable
or at no more than the actual cost of
reproduction. (See 40 CFR 1506.6(f)).
(k) Timing. An OA may not make a
decision on the proposed action until 90
days after publication of EPA’s notice of
availability of the DEIS. (40 CFR
1506.11(b)(1)).
(1) Waiting period. When an OA
determines, it is not practicable to issue
a combined FEIS/ROD pursuant to
§ 13.27(c), it may not make a decision
on the proposed action until 30 days
after the publication of EPA’s notice of
availability of the FEIS. (40 CFR
1506.11(b)(2)).
(2) Reducing time periods. If an OA
believes it is necessary to reduce the
prescribed time periods for EIS
processing, it must request the
reduction from EPA, which may reduce
the prescribed periods based upon a
showing of compelling reasons of
national policy (40 CFR 1506.11(d)), and
notify the Office of Policy of this
request.
(3) Extending time periods. OAs may
grant requests for reasonable extensions
of the comment period when warranted
by the magnitude and complexity of the
proposed action or extent of public
interest. When granting an extension,
the OA should notify EPA so it may
modify its notice of availability.
§ 13.25 Draft Environmental Impact
Statements.
(a) Timing of preparation of the DEIS.
Preparation of the DEIS should begin as
close as possible to the time a proposal
is developed so that the analysis of the
environmental impacts and the
exploration of alternatives can be
meaningfully considered in the
decision-making process. For
rulemakings, the OA should release the
DEIS prior to or concurrent with the
issuance of the proposed rule. (See 40
CFR 1502.5).
(b) Combined FEIS/ROD. Consistent
with 49 U.S.C. 304a(b) or 23 U.S.C.
139(n)(2), as applicable, and § 13.27(c),
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 20, 2020
Jkt 253001
the DEIS should include a statement of
the OA’s intent to issue a combined
FEIS/ROD and identify a preferred
alternative.
(c) Circulation and request for
comment. The OA must make the DEIS
available with an invitation to comment
to:
(1) The public;
(2) All cooperating agencies and other
Federal agencies with jurisdiction by
law or special expertise with respect to
the environmental impacts involved;
(3) State, Tribal, or local agencies with
authority to develop and enforce
environmental standards;
(4) Any agency that has requested that
it receive statements on actions of the
kind proposed;
(5) Interested or affected persons,
agencies, and organizations;
(6) EPA;
(7) Federally Recognized Indian
Tribes, Alaska Natives, and Native
Hawaiians, as appropriate;
(8) The applicant, if any; and
(9) Other OAs, where appropriate.
(See 40 CFR 1502.20, 1503.1, and
1506.6).
(d) Electronic submission. OAs must
provide for electronic submission of
public comments as well as ensure that
the comment process is accessible to
persons who may be affected by the
proposed action(s). (See 40 CFR
1503.1(c)).
§ 13.27 Final Environmental Impact
Statements.
(a) Response to comments. In the
FEIS, the OA should make every
practicable effort to resolve major,
relevant issues identified in comments
on the DEIS, the public involvement
process, and consultation with
cooperating agencies. The FEIS should
identify any unresolved major issues,
and the consultation and efforts made to
resolve those issues. In response to
substantive comments on the DEIS, the
OA should do one or more of the
following and state the response in the
FEIS: Modify alternatives including the
proposed action; develop and evaluate
alternatives not previously given serious
consideration by the OA; supplement,
improve, or modify its analyses; make
factual corrections; or explain why the
comments do not warrant further
response, citing the sources, authorities,
or reasons that support the OA’s
position, and if appropriate, indicate
those circumstances that would trigger
the OA’s reappraisal or further response.
The OA should attach to the FEIS
substantive comments received on the
DEIS, or summaries of comments where
comments are particularly voluminous.
(40 CFR 1503.4).
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(b) Errata sheets. In preparing an
FEIS, if the OA makes minor changes to
the DEIS in response to comments, and
the changes are confined to factual
corrections or explanations of why the
comments do not warrant further
response, the OA may write the changes
on errata sheets attached to the DEIS
instead of rewriting the DEIS. (See 49
U.S.C. 304a(a) or 23 U.S.C. 139(n)(1), as
applicable, and 40 CFR 1503.4(c)). The
errata sheets must cite the sources,
authorities, and reasons that support the
OA’s position and, if appropriate,
indicate the circumstances that would
trigger the OA’s reappraisal or further
response.
(c) Combined FEIS/ROD. Pursuant to
49 U.S.C. 304a(b) or 23 U.S.C. 139(n)(2),
as applicable, to the maximum extent
practicable, an OA must expeditiously
develop a single document that consists
of an FEIS and ROD, unless the FEIS
makes substantial changes to the
proposed action that are relevant to
environmental or safety concerns; or
there is a significant new circumstance
or information relevant to
environmental concerns that bears on
the proposed action or the impacts of
the proposed action. Cooperating
agencies must to the extent practicable
issue the FEIS/ROD jointly with the lead
agency for transportation actions. (See
40 CFR 1501.8(b)(8)).
(d) Compliance with other
requirements. To the fullest extent
possible, in accordance with 40 CFR
1502.24 and § 13.13(a), the FEIS should
reflect compliance or plans for
compliance with the requirements of
other applicable environmental laws,
regulations, and orders, such as those
listed in Appendix C of this part. If such
compliance is not possible by the time
of FEIS preparation, the FEIS should
reflect consultation with the appropriate
agencies and provide reasonable
assurance that the OA can meet the
requirements.
(e) Internal review and approval. The
Administrator or Secretarial Officer (or
their designee) of the lead agency may
approve an FEIS. OAs must ensure that
EISs are evaluated for technical
sufficiency consistent with this part and
OA Procedures. The Chief Counsel of
the OA, or designee, must review all
FEISs for legal sufficiency. OGC’s Office
of Operations must review FEISs
prepared by Secretarial offices for legal
sufficiency.
(f) Office of Policy notification. For
FEISs on actions involving novel or
emerging technology, methodology, or
science; actions opposed on
environmental grounds by a Federal,
State, Tribe, or local government or
agency; or, actions opposed by a
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 226 / Monday, November 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
substantial number of the persons
affected by such action or actions, the
OA must notify the Office of Policy that
the FEIS is under development. OAs
should notify the Office of Policy as
early as possible, and, where
practicable, provide at least two weeks’
notice before approving the FEIS.
(g) Circulation. After the FEIS is
finalized, the OA must publish the FEIS
(or combined FEIS/ROD). The OA must
furnish the entire FEIS to any Federal
agency with jurisdiction by law or
special expertise with respect to any
environmental impact involved and any
appropriate Federal, State, Tribal, or
local agency authorized to develop and
enforce environmental standards; the
applicant; and any Federal, State,
Tribal, and local agencies, and private
organizations and individuals that
commented substantively on the DEIS
or requested copies of the FEIS, as well
as the entities to which the OA was
required to distribute the DEIS. (See 40
CFR 1502.20, 1503.1, and 1506.6).
§ 13.29
Records of Decision.
(a) In accordance with § 13.27(c), to
the maximum extent practicable, an OA
must develop a single document
consisting of a combined FEIS and ROD
or issue the FEIS and ROD
simultaneously, pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
304a(b) or 23 U.S.C. 139(n)(2), as
applicable. When an OA determines, it
is not practicable to issue a combined
FEIS and ROD, the waiting period set
forth in § 13.23(j)(1) applies. In such
cases, and when the proposal requires
action by multiple Federal agencies, the
OA should issue a single ROD with the
other Federal agencies. An OA may
integrate the ROD into any other record
or decision document, such as a final
rule.
(b) The ROD must state the OA’s
decision, identify all alternatives the OA
considered in reaching its decision,
specifying the environmentally
preferable alternative(s); identify and
discuss all factors, including essential
considerations of national policy, that
the OA balanced in making its decision
and state how those considerations
entered into its decision; state whether
the OA has adopted all practicable
means to avoid or minimize
environmental harm from the selected
alternative and, as necessary, explain
why not; and adopt and summarize any
monitoring and enforcement program
where applicable for any mitigation.
(See 40 CFR 1505.2(a)).
(c) The ROD must provide a
certification by the decisionmaker that
the agency has considered all the
alternatives, information, analysis, and
objections submitted by State, tribal and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 20, 2020
Jkt 253001
local governments and public
commenters for consideration by the
lead and cooperating agencies in
developing the EIS. This certification
establishes a presumption that the
agency has considered the submitted
alternatives, information, and analyses
including the summary in the FEIS. (See
40 CFR 1505.2(b)).
(d) The ROD should not repeat
analysis contained in the EIS but rather
incorporate it by reference in the OA’s
decision; and briefly document
compliance with all environmental laws
applicable to the action, or the
procedures and expected timeframe for
completion of such compliance.
Consistent with 40 CFR 1505.3, the ROD
should also include, as appropriate, any
required mitigation commitments and
describe the monitoring measures being
implemented.
(e) The ROD may discuss preferences
among alternatives based on relevant
economic, technical, or other factors, as
well as OA mission and authority.
§ 13.31
Adoption.
(a) If an OA is a cooperating agency
for an EIS, it may adopt without
publishing the lead agency’s original
EIS after conducting an independent
review of the statement and concluding
that its comments and suggestions have
been satisfied. (See 40 CFR
1506.3(b)(2)). In the case of an FEIS, the
OA may issue a ROD simultaneous with
the adoption.
(b) If an OA is not a cooperating
agency, but the action covered by the
original EIS and the proposed action are
substantially the same, the OA is not
required to publish it except as an FEIS.
(See 40 CFR 1506.3(b)(1)). To the
maximum extent practicable, the OA
must issue a combined FEIS and ROD
consistent with 49 U.S.C. 304a(b) or 23
U.S.C. 139(n), as applicable, and
§ 13.27(c).
(c) If an OA is not a cooperating
agency and the OA’s proposed action
and the action covered by the original
EIS are not substantially the same, the
OA may adopt the EIS or a portion
thereof as a draft and, after making all
necessary revisions to the document,
publish it. (40 CFR 1506.3(b)). If the OA
intends to issue a combined FEIS/ROD,
the recirculation should include a
statement of the OA’s intent to issue a
combined document.
(d) An OA may adopt, in whole or in
part, another Federal agency’s draft or
final EA if the OA determines, based on
an independent evaluation, that the
document meets the applicable
standards for an EA in 40 CFR parts
1500 through 1508, this part, and its OA
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
74661
Procedures. The OA must notify the
public consistent with 40 CFR 1506.6.
(e) An OA may adopt a CE
determination of another agency when
the action in the original CE
determination and the proposed action
are substantially the same. When doing
so, the OA must document the adoption.
(See 40 CFR 1506.3(d)).
(f) Before adopting all or a portion of
another Federal agency’s EIS or EA that
is more than five years old, an OA must
re-evaluate the relevant portion of the
other agency’s EA or EIS in accordance
with § 13.33.
(g) When an OA adopts and publishes
an EIS, it must file it with EPA in
accordance with EPA filing guidance.
(40 CFR 1506.10). When an OA adopts
an EIS without republishing, it must
notify EPA.
(h) An OA may adopt a DEIS, EA, or
FEIS of another OA in accordance with
49 U.S.C. 304a(c)(2).
§ 13.33 Re-evaluation and
supplementation.
(a) Re-evaluation. Consistent with 40
CFR 1502.9(d)(4), when an action is not
complete and a decision remains to
occur, a re-evaluation is a process that
OAs should use to evaluate an existing
CE determination, EA, or EIS to
determine whether it remains adequate,
accurate, and valid, or whether a
supplemental NEPA analysis is needed.
(1) An OA should engage in a reevaluation, consistent with its OA
Procedures, where applicable, when,
prior to the OA’s completion of an
action, there are changes in the
proposed action that are relevant to
environmental concerns; or there are
new circumstances or information
relevant to environmental concerns and
bearing on the proposed action or its
impacts.
(2) An OA must re-evaluate in writing
a DEIS if the OA has not issued an FEIS
within five years from the circulation
date of the DEIS. An OA must reevaluate in writing an FEIS if major
steps toward implementation have not
commenced within five years from the
date of approval of the FEIS or FEIS
supplement.
(b) Supplemental EAs and EISs. OAs
must prepare a supplemental EA or EIS
when, prior to the OA’s completion of
an action, there are substantial changes
in the proposed action that are relevant
to environmental concerns, or there are
significant new circumstances or
information relevant to environmental
concerns and bearing on the proposed
action or its impacts. (40 CFR
1502.9(d)(1)). In addition, an OA may
voluntarily prepare a supplemental EA
or EIS when the OA determines,
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
74662
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 226 / Monday, November 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
consistent with its OA Procedures and
40 CFR 1502.9(d)(2), that the purpose of
NEPA will be furthered by doing so. An
OA must prepare, publish, and file a
supplemental EA or EIS as an EA or
DEIS and FEIS unless CEQ approves
alternative procedures. (40 CFR
1502.9(d)(3)). Where there are
compelling reasons to follow alternative
procedures, the OA must consult CEQ
for approval and notify the Office of
Policy.
§ 13.35
Emergency actions.
(a) Emergency circumstances.
Emergency circumstances may require
immediate actions that prevent
following standard NEPA procedures.
For example, immediate threats to
human health or safety, or immediate
threats to valuable natural resources
may make it necessary to take an action
with significant environmental impact
without following standard NEPA
procedures. OAs (which should consult
with CEQ) must limit such alternative
arrangements to the actions necessary to
control the immediate impacts of the
emergency. When time permits, OAs
should prepare environmental
documentation. Alternative
arrangements for NEPA compliance are
permitted for emergency actions. (See
40 CFR 1506.12 and Fixing America’s
Surface Transportation Act, Pub. L.
114–94, sec. 1432).
(b) Significant impacts. When
emergency circumstances make it
necessary to take an action with
significant or potentially significant
environmental impacts, without
observing provisions of this part, OA
Procedures, or 40 CFR parts 1500
through 1508, the OA should consult
with CEQ. (See 40 CFR 1506.12). OAs
should notify the Office of Policy of the
consultation and where time allows,
provide an opportunity for the Office of
Policy to review any alternative
arrangements. The alternative
arrangements should be limited to
actions necessary to control the
immediate impacts of the emergency.
(c) Non-significant impacts. When the
expected environmental impacts of the
proposed action are not considered
significant and the action cannot be
categorically excluded, to the extent
practicable, the OA should prepare a
focused EA that complies with this part,
OA Procedures, and 40 CFR parts 1500
through 1508.
§ 13.37 Environmental Impact Statements
for legislative proposals.
(a) Preparation. An OA must prepare
and publish a legislative EIS (LEIS) for
any legislative proposal for which DOT
has primary responsibility and involves
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 20, 2020
Jkt 253001
significant environmental impacts.
Procedures for preparing an LEIS are
found at 40 CFR 1506.8. The OA
originating the legislation must prepare
the LEIS. Except as provided by 40 CFR
1506.8(c)(2), an OA does not need to
prepare both a draft and final LEIS.
(b) Processing. The Office of Policy
and OGC must concur on the LEIS.
OGC’s Office of Legislation will submit
the LEIS to the Office of Management
and Budget for circulation in the normal
legislative clearance process. The LEIS
is part of the formal transmittal of a
legislative proposal to Congress.
However, the LEIS may be transmitted
up to 30 days after the formal
transmittal (40 CFR 1506.8(b)).
§ 13.39
International actions.
(a) Executive Order 12114,
‘‘Environmental Effects Abroad of Major
Federal Actions’’ (Jan. 4, 1979), applies
to major Federal actions having
significant environmental impacts
outside of the United States and its
territories and possessions. If an EIS is
required under E.O. 12114, section 2–
4(a)(i), the OA must prepare it in
compliance with this part and the OA
Procedures.
(b) If an OA anticipates
communication with a foreign
government concerning agreements and
other arrangements related to
environmental studies or
documentation, the OA must coordinate
such communication with the U.S.
Department of State, in consultation
with the Office of Policy and the Office
of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation
and International Affairs (See E.O.
12144, sec. 3–2).
Appendix A to Part 13—List of
Departmental Categorical Exclusions
1. Routine procedural, administrative,
financial, and management actions necessary
to support the normal conduct of DOT
business. Routine procurements and contract
actions for goods and services including
general supplies, equipment, utility services,
contractor services, and personnel services.*
2. Personnel actions including recruiting,
hiring, promotions, processing, paying, and
recordkeeping.*
3. Training, technical assistance, and
educational and informational programs and
activities.*
4. Operating or maintenance subsidies or
agreements, such as operating subsidies to
transit agencies or air carriers under the
Essential Air Service program, when the
subsidy or agreement will not result in a
change in the effect on the environment.
5. Actions categorically excluded in OA
Procedures 6 where the action is
administered by another OA. The OA with
the CE must provide a written determination
6 See
PO 00000
Appendix B to part 13.
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
that the CE applies to the action proposed by
the other OA and must provide expertise in
reviewing the action being categorically
excluded. The extraordinary circumstances
provided in the OA Procedures where the CE
is listed should be considered in lieu of the
extraordinary circumstances provided in
§ 13.17(b). This CE is not applicable to
actions that meet the definition of
multimodal project in 23 U.S.C. 139(a);
instead, an OA may follow the process in
§ 13.17(c).
6. Leasing of space in existing buildings or
facilities.
7. Remodeling existing buildings or
facilities including maintenance,
reconstruction, rehabilitation, retrofit, or
upgrades of existing buildings, facilities, or
systems, such as electrical and plumbing
systems, replacement of siding, roof
rehabilitation, resurfacing, or reconstruction
of paved areas.
8. Gardening, landscaping, and
maintenance of existing landscaping that
does not cause or promote the introduction
or spread of invasive species that would
harm the native ecosystem.
9. Investigations, research activities, and
studies including data collection and
analysis, information gathering, document
preparation, and information dissemination.*
10. Promulgation, modification, or
revocation of rules, issuance of rulings or
interpretations, and the development and
publication of policies, orders, directives,
notices, procedures, manuals, advisory
circulars, and other guidance documents that
are administrative, organizational, or
procedural in nature, or are corrective,
technical, or minor.*
11. Promulgation, modification, revocation,
or interpretation of safety standards, rules,
and regulations that do not result in a
substantial increase in emissions of air or
water pollutants, noise, or traffic congestion,
or increase the risk of reportable release of
hazardous materials or toxic substances in
any mode of transportation.
12. Hearings, meetings, and public
outreach activities.*
13. Administrative actions and
proceedings, such as rendering decisions on
petitions for rulemaking and petitions for
reconsideration.*
14. Financial assistance to an applicant
solely for the purpose of refinancing
outstanding debt, where the debt funds an
action that is already completed.*
15. Agreements with foreign governments,
foreign civil aviation authorities,
international organizations, or U.S.
Government departments or agencies calling
for cooperative activities or the provision of
technical assistance, advice, equipment,
funds, or services to those parties, and the
implementation of such agreements;
negotiations and agreements to establish and
define bilateral safety relationships with
foreign governments and the implementation
of such agreements.*
16. The following actions relating to
economic regulation of airlines:
a. Actions approving an agreement
between an air carrier and a foreign air
carrier; acquisition of control, merger,
consolidation, or interlocking relationship;*
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 226 / Monday, November 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
b. Finding a U.S. or foreign air carrier fit
under 49 U.S.C. chapters 411 or 413;*
c. Approving or setting carrier fares or
rates;*
d. Making a determination on the
reasonableness of a fee imposed by an airport
proprietor on a U.S. or foreign air carrier;*
e. Route awards involving turboprop
aircraft having a capacity of 60 seats or less
and a maximum payload capacity of 18,000
pounds or less;
f. Route awards that do not involve
supersonic service and will not result in an
increase in commercial aircraft operations of
one or more percent;
g. Determinations on termination of airline
employees;*
h. Actions relating to consumer protection,
including regulations;*
i. Authorizing carriers to serve airports
already receiving the type of service
authorized, which does not result in
significant air quality, noise or other adverse
environmental consequences;
j. Granting temporary or emergency
authority;
k. Registration of an air taxi operator
pursuant to 14 CFR part 298; and
l. Granting of charter authority to a U.S. or
foreign air carrier under 49 U.S.C. chapters
411 or 413.
‘‘*’’ indicates an undocumented CE
Appendix B to Part 13—List of
Categorical Exclusions in Operating
Administration Procedures
This list identifies the location of
categorical exclusions (CEs) currently
established in each of the Department’s OA
Procedures. These CEs are incorporated by
reference and may require additional
approval by the relevant OA. These CEs are
subject to review for the extraordinary
circumstances contained in the relevant OA
procedures. The Department will update the
citations contained in this list as necessary.
(a) CEs for the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) are located in FAA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 20, 2020
Jkt 253001
Order 1050.1F, Paragraph 5–6 (80 FR 44208,
July 24, 2015).
(b) CEs for the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) are located at 23
CFR 771.117.
(c) CEs for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) are located at
FMCSA Order 5610.1, Appendix 2 (69 FR
9680, March 1, 2004).
(d) CEs for the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) are located in 23 CFR
771.116(c).
(e) CEs for the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) are located in 23 CFR
771.118.
(f) CEs for the Maritime Administration
(MARAD) are located at Maritime
Administration Order No. 600–1, Appendix 1
(50 FR 11606, March 22, 1985).
(g) CEs for the Saint Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation (SLSDC) are
located at SLSDC Order 10–5610.1C,
Paragraph 6b (46 FR 28795, May 28, 1981).
Appendix C to Part 13—Environmental
Requirements for Integration With the
NEPA Process
As noted in § 13.13(a), Operating
Administrations should coordinate and
integrate all relevant environmental reviews,
authorizations, and consultations into the
NEPA process. The following is a nonexhaustive list of authorities under which
these may be conducted (subject to further
amendment, repeal, rescission, revocation, or
other change):
1. Section 4(f), 23 U.S.C. 138 and 49 U.S.C.
303.
2. Section 176 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 7506, and its
implementing regulations: 40 CFR part 51,
subpart T and part 93, subpart A
(Transportation Conformity) or 40 CFR part
51, subpart W and part 93, subpart B (General
Conformity).
3. Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 54
U.S.C. 306108 (Section 106).
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
74663
4. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,
as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1536.
5. Section 404 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), as
amended, 33 U.S.C. 1344.
6. Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended,
16 U.S.C. 703–712.
7. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act,
as amended, 16 U.S.C. 668–668d.
8. Section 307 of the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, as amended, 16
U.S.C. 1456.
9. Section 2 of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 662.
10. Section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act,
as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1855.
11. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, as
amended, 16 U.S.C. 2901–2912.
12. Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
of 1899, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 401.
13. The General Bridge Act of 1946, 33
U.S.C. 525(a)–(b), 528, 530, and 533.
14. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain
Management (May 24, 1977) as implemented
by the Department through DOT Order
5650.2.
15. Executive Order 11990, Protection of
Wetlands (May 24, 1977) as implemented by
the Department through DOT Order 5660.1A.
16. Executive Order 12114, Environmental
Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions (Jan.
4, 1979).
17. Executive Order 12372,
Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs (July 14, 1982).
18. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations
(Feb. 11, 1994), as implemented by the
Department through DOT Order 5610.2(a).
19. Executive Order 13175, Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments (Nov. 6, 2000).
[FR Doc. 2020–25030 Filed 11–20–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 226 (Monday, November 23, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74640-74663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25030]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary of Transportation
49 CFR Part 13
[Docket No. DOT-OST-2020-0229]
RIN 2105-AE97
Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) proposes to update
and codify its internal order establishing the responsibilities and
procedures for complying with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), currently found in DOT Order 5610.1C, ``Procedures for
Considering Environmental Impacts,'' which was issued in 1979 and last
updated in 1985. This proposal would update the DOT NEPA procedures in
response to the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) final rule
updating its NEPA procedures and also incorporate provisions of the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU); Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act (MAP-21); and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation
(FAST) Act related to the Department's environmental review process.
This proposed rule would modernize the Department's procedures and
promote collaboration and efficiency in the implementation of NEPA.
Finally, this proposal would also update the list of the Department's
categorical exclusions consistent with the CEQ's regulations
implementing NEPA.
DATES: Persons interested in submitting written comments on this NPRM
must do so by December 23, 2020. The Department will consider late
comments to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: To ensure you do not duplicate your docket submissions,
please submit comments by only one of the following means:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.
Instructions: All comment submissions must include the agency name,
docket name, and docket number (DOT-OST-2020-0229) or Regulation
Identifier Number (RIN) for this rulemaking (2105-AE97). Note that all
comments received will be posted without change to www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided. Physical access to the
Docket is available at the Hand Delivery address noted above.
This document may be viewed online under the docket number noted
above through the Federal eRulemaking portal, www.regulations.gov. An
electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office
of the Federal Register's website, www.federalregister.gov, and the
Government Publishing Office's website, www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/fr. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. The DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in
[[Page 74641]]
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be viewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: April Marchese, Director,
Infrastructure Permitting Improvement Center, 202-366-4416,
[email protected] or Krystyna Bednarczyk, Office of the General
Counsel, 202-366-5283, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Statutory Authority
The National Environmental Policy Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321-
4347 (NEPA), requires all Federal agencies to assess the environmental
impact of their actions. 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). The Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) has issued regulations at 40 CFR parts
1500-1508 (CEQ regulations) implementing NEPA that are binding on
Federal agencies. On July 16, 2020, CEQ issued a final rule
comprehensively updating those regulations. 85 FR 43304 (July 16,
2020). The CEQ regulations require Federal agencies to develop or
revise their procedures for implementing NEPA, as necessary, for
consistency with CEQ's regulations or for efficiency. 40 CFR 1507.3(b),
(c). The CEQ regulations require agencies to consult with CEQ during
the development of their implementing procedures and prior to their
publication in the Federal Register. 40 CFR 1507.3. The U.S. Department
of Transportation (Department or DOT) has accordingly reviewed its
current implementing procedures and undertakes this revision pursuant
to 40 CFR 1507.3. The Department developed the proposed rule in
consultation with CEQ. In accordance with 40 CFR 1507.3(a), the
Department is proposing this rule and providing an opportunity for
public review and comment on the proposal.
B. Background
NEPA establishes a national environmental policy of the Federal
Government to use all practicable means and measures to foster and
promote the general welfare, create and maintain conditions under which
man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social,
economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of
Americans. 42 U.S.C. 4331(a). Section 102(2) of NEPA establishes the
procedural requirements to carry out the policy stated in section 101
of NEPA. It requires Federal agencies to consider the environmental
effects of proposed actions in their decisionmaking and prepare
detailed environmental statements on recommendations or reports and
other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment. 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). In 2005, Congress enacted 23
U.S.C. 139, ``Efficient environmental reviews for project
decisionmaking,'' a streamlined environmental review process for
highway, transit, and multimodal transportation projects through the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Public Law 109-59, sec. 6002 (2005). In
2012, Congress declared it in the national interest to accelerate
transportation project delivery and reduce costs, and ensure that
transportation planning, design, and construction are completed in an
efficient and effective manner. Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141, sec. 1301 (2012) (set out at
23 U.S.C. 101 note). In 2015, Congress also directed the Department to
implement a variety of reforms to streamline and accelerate its
environmental review process. See Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act (FAST) Act, Public Law 114-94 (2015).
The Department proposes to revise its current procedures, DOT Order
5610.1C, ``Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts,''
originally published in 1979, 44 FR 56420 (Oct. 1, 1979), and codify
them in the Code of Federal Regulations. DOT Order 5610.1C, which is
now in effect, was updated in 1982 and 1985 (1985 procedures).\1\ This
proposed rule would update and modernize the 1985 procedures and
reflect current departmental NEPA practice. As reflected in the
proposed rule, the Department also considered comments it received in
response to its publication of proposed Order 5610.1D in the Federal
Register on December 20, 2016. 81 FR 92966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Available at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/Procedures_Considering_Environmental_Impacts_5610_1C.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department is issuing this proposed rule to enhance and
modernize the Department's environmental review processes, bring
consistency to the documentation of environmental analyses under these
processes, and incorporate strategies to complete environmental review
more efficiently in accordance with streamlining efforts developed by
the Department at the direction of Congress. This proposed rule would
update the procedures to be consistent with CEQ's updated regulations
and promote agency efficiency. This proposed rule would also update the
1985 procedures to account for relevant project delivery provisions and
other streamlining efforts included in SAFETEA-LU, MAP-21 and the FAST
Act, that apply departmentwide. Accordingly, the proposed rule would
reflect the Department's modern NEPA practices and unique project
delivery statutory authorities by providing direction on analyzing
multimodal projects in an expedited and streamlined manner, enhancing
early coordination, and incorporating a multimodal categorical
exclusion (CE) process that allows the Department's Operating
Administrations (OAs) to utilize each other's CEs. The proposed rule
would also incorporate agency practice, including environmental review
tracking requirements, and would provide for accountability for agency
NEPA compliance to senior agency officials, consistent with the updated
CEQ regulations. See 40 CFR 1508.1(dd).
The proposed rule seeks to ensure a full and fair environmental
review process that includes meaningful public involvement throughout,
and balanced consideration of alternatives and potential impacts on the
human environment. The proposed rule would modernize the 1985
procedures to improve efficiency and expedite project delivery; provide
enhanced customer service to stakeholders through consistent
implementation of NEPA across the Department, where possible; provide
support for the Department's OAs to apply OAs specific NEPA
implementing procedures to their specific programs; and balance the
needs of all OAs. These reforms are intended to ensure that NEPA
documents inform and involve the public, focus on the significant
issues that require analysis, and foster informed decisionmaking based
on an understanding of the potential action's environmental
consequences.
C. Expected Impact of the Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would revise the internal procedures of the
Department, promoting consistent implementation across the Department
of its responsibilities under NEPA while still allowing flexibility for
each OA to carry out its own mission. Facilitating the appropriate use
of departmental CEs would reduce the expenditure of government
resources on the preparation of environmental assessments (EAs) or
environmental impact statements (EISs) and would shorten approval
timelines for activities or projects that, based on the
[[Page 74642]]
Department's experience, normally do not have the potential to have a
significant effect on the human environment and therefore normally do
not require the preparation of an EA or EIS. 40 CFR 1501.4.
Promulgating CEs for the entire Department also promotes consistency,
reduces inefficiency, and allows OA procedures to focus on the unique
issues in their programs. Codifying all these policies and procedures
would provide consistency, aid efficiency, reduce duplication, and
refocus agency practice on fostering informed decisionmaking, rather
than generating paperwork. The Department expects that this would
reduce unnecessary delays. The Department also expects the proposed
changes to increase the availability and use of CEs, early
collaboration, and dispute resolution and coordination techniques, and
to improve timely completion of the environmental review process.
II. Proposed Revisions Generally
The proposed rule would comprehensively update the 1985 procedures.
This proposal would update the organization of the 1985 procedures to
align with current Department organization, practice, and policies to
more effectively and efficiently implement the DOT NEPA policies and
the new revisions of the CEQ regulations published on July 16, 2020 (85
FR 43304). The proposal would update the existing Departmentwide CEs,
including adding 11 new CEs and modifying the existing CEs. The
proposal would also improve clarity and reduce ambiguity regarding the
entities responsible for taking the actions specified in the rule. To
improve readability, this proposal would designate ``OA'' as the entity
responsible for conducting NEPA analyses, and would define ``OA'' to
include a Secretarial Office that carries out its own NEPA
responsibilities (as opposed to an office that relies on an OA's
expertise to prepare the NEPA document). This proposal also would
update the names of the relevant offices that have responsibilities,
including the Office of Policy and Office of the General Counsel (and
relevant subdivisions thereof). The proposal would apply to the
Department's diverse programs and actions, and, to the extent possible,
would avoid creating conflicts with existing OA programs and actions.
To that end, the Department does not propose to include the more
detailed policy concerning the format and content of EISs that was
contained in Attachment 2 of the 1985 procedures. DOT also does not
propose to include Attachment 1 of the 1985 procedures, which provided
a list of the States and localities with EIS requirements. Finally,
this proposal would update terminology for consistency with modern NEPA
practice and the Department's current operations. The proposed
revisions to the 1985 procedures are provided in Table 1.
Table 1--Crosswalk of Proposed Revisions to 1985 Procedures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1985 Procedures Section Proposed subpart Proposed section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction......................... 1. Purpose............. A...................... 13.1.
2. Cancellation........ Removed................ Removed.
3. Authority........... B; Appendix C of part 13.7(d); Appendix C of
13. part 13.
1. Background........................ ....................... Removed................ Removed.
2. Policy and Intent................. ....................... A; B................... 13.5; 13.13.
3. Planning and Early Coordination... ....................... B...................... 13.9.
4. Environmental Processing Choice... a. Action Covered...... A...................... 13.3.
b. Environmental Impact B...................... 13.23.
Statements.
c. Categorical B; Appendix A of part 13.17; Appendix A of
Exclusions. 13. part 13.
d. Environmental B...................... 13.19.
Assessment. Removed................ Removed.
e. Exemptions..........
5. Finding of No Significant Impact ....................... B...................... 13.21.
(FONSI).
6. Lead Agencies and Cooperating ....................... B...................... 13.11.
Agencies.
7. Preparation and Processing of a. Scope of Statement.. B...................... 13.23(c).
Draft Environmental Impact b. Timing of B...................... 13.25(a).
Statements (DEISs). Preparation of Draft
Statements.
c. Interdisciplinary B...................... 13.13(d).
Approach and
Responsibility for EIS
Preparation.
d. Preparation of Draft Removed................ 13.13(a); Appendix C.
e. Format and Content.. B...................... 13.23(e).
f. Circulation of the B...................... 13.25(c).
Draft Environmental
Impact Statement.
g. Tiering............. B...................... 13.13(f).
B...................... 13.25(b).
B...................... 13.23(f).
13.23(g).
8. Inviting Comments on the DEIS..... a. State and Local B...................... 13.25(c).
Review. B...................... 13.23(d).
b. Review of EISs
Prepared Pursuant to
Section 102(2)(D) of
NEPA.
9. Review of Environmental Impact ....................... Removed................ Removed.
Statements Prepared by Other
Agencies.
10. Predecision Referrals to the a. DOT Lead Agency B...................... 13.13(e)(2)(i).
Council on Environmental Quality. Proposals. B...................... 13.13(e)(2)(ii).
b. DOT Referrals to CEQ
on Other Agencies'
Proposals.
[[Page 74643]]
11. Final Environmental Impact a. Preparation......... ....................... 13.27(a).
Statements. b. Compliance with A; B; Appendix C of 13.5;
Other Requirements. part 13. 13.13(a);13.27(b);
Appendix C of part 13.
c. Legal Review........ B...................... 13.7.
d. Approval............ B...................... 13.27(e).
e. Availability Pending Removed................ Removed.
Approval.
f. Availability of B...................... 13.25(h)-(i); 13.27(g).
Statements to EPA and
the Public.
g. Implementation of B...................... 13.13(g).
Representations in
Environmental
Statements.
h. Supplemental B...................... 13.33(b).
Statements. B...................... 13.27(b).
12. Determinations under Section 4(f) ....................... Removed................ Removed.
of the DOT Act.
13. Responsibility................... ....................... B...................... 13.7.
14. Citizen Involvement Procedures... ....................... B...................... 13.13(h).
15. Proposals for Legislation........ a. Preparation......... B...................... 13.37(a).
b. Processing.......... B...................... 13.37(b).
16. International Actions............ ....................... B...................... 13.39.
17. Timing of Agency Action.......... ....................... B...................... 13.23(j).
18. Effective Date................... ....................... Removed................ Removed.
19. Time in Effect of Statements..... ....................... B...................... 13.33(a).
20. Implementing Instructions........ ....................... B...................... 13.7(e).
21. Responsible Official for Office ....................... B...................... 13.7.
of the Secretary Actions.
Attachment 1. State and Localities ....................... Removed................ Removed.
with EIS Requirements.
Attachment 2. Format and Content of ....................... Removed................ Removed.
Environmental Impact Statements.
B...................... 13.29.
B...................... 13.31.
B...................... 13.35.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Section-by Section Description of Changes in the Proposed Rule
This proposal would rearrange the 1985 procedures and would
separate them into two subparts to divide the generally applicable
provisions in subpart A from the provisions addressing the NEPA review
process and compliance responsibilities in subpart B. In addition,
subpart B would reorder sections from the 1985 procedures to align with
the Department's environmental review process and the levels of NEPA
documentation.
A. Subpart A--General
This proposal would remove the Introduction and Background sections
of the 1985 procedures and would transfer content addressing the
purpose of the Department's NEPA implementing procedures to proposed
Sec. Sec. 13.1 and 13.5. Proposed subpart A would significantly
reorganize and update section 2 of the 1985 procedures, ``Policy and
Intent,'' in proposed Sec. 13.5 to reflect current policy and intent
of the DOT NEPA procedures. As discussed more specifically in the
section-by-section summaries of proposed Sec. Sec. 13.1 through 13.5,
this proposed subpart would emphasize the Department's goals to: (1)
Achieve the Department's mission and ensure consistency with national
transportation policy (Sec. 13.5(a)); (2) use the NEPA process as an
umbrella to achieve a single, integrated environmental review process
\2\ (Sec. 13.5(b)); (3) use sound science and reliable data (Sec.
13.5(c)); (4) facilitate a collaborative process to achieve optimal
outcomes while protecting and enhancing the environment (Sec.
13.5(d)); and (5) ensure meaningful public participation and
collaboration (Sec. 13.5(e)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For the purpose of this NPRM, ``environmental review''
encompasses both the NEPA process and authorizations, including
reviews or actions taken to comply with relevant substantive
environmental requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed subpart would set forth the Department's overarching
environmental policy in the context of its agency mission, which is to
ensure the safest, most efficient and modern transportation system in
the world, which improves the quality of life for all American people
and communities, from rural to urban, and increases the productivity
and competitiveness of American workers and businesses. The proposed
subpart would provide consistency between the Department's NEPA
procedures and congressional declarations of policy, which provide that
it is in the national interest to ``accelerate project delivery and
reduce costs'' and to ensure that transportation project delivery is
completed in ``an efficient and effective manner, promoting
accountability for public investments and encouraging greater private
sector involvement . . . while enhancing safety and protecting the
environment.'' MAP-21 sec. 1301 (set out at 23 U.S.C. 101 note).
Finally, this subpart would support the presumptive time limits
established in the updated CEQ regulations to complete environmental
documentation. See 40 CFR 1501.10.
Sec. 13.1 Applicability
The applicability section would focus on the implementation of NEPA
pursuant to the CEQ regulations and include covered actions. Covered
actions would identify categories of Department actions typically
subject to
[[Page 74644]]
NEPA. For consistency with the CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1508.1(q),
this section would clarify that loans and loan guarantees may be
actions subject to NEPA when the OA exercises sufficient control and
responsibility over the effects of such assistance. This list would
also include ``approvals of policies and plans (including those
submitted to the Department by State, Tribal, or local agencies, or
other public or private applicants, unless otherwise exempted).''
The CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1501.1 and 1507.3(d) provide that
agencies should identify activities or decisions that are not subject
to NEPA. This section would exclude transportation improvement plans
(TIPs) and statewide improvement plans (STIPs) conducted pursuant to 23
U.S.C. 134 and 135 because TIPs and STIPs are statutorily exempt from
review under NEPA pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 134(q) and 23 U.S.C. 135(k),
respectively. In addition, the section would clarify, consistent with
40 CFR 1501.1(a)(5) and 1507.3(d)(5), and with Department of
Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (2004), that a proposal
is not an action subject to NEPA if the proposal is ministerial in
nature; if the Department lacks discretion to consider the
environmental impacts in making the decision; or if the Department does
not have responsibility for, or cannot control, the outcome. DOT
recommends that OAs identify any specific additional activities or
decisions to which NEPA does not apply, consistent with 40 CFR 1501.1
and 1507.3(d), as appropriate, in their own implementing procedures as
stated in Sec. 13.7(c)(1).
The Department proposed to use ``rulemakings'' rather than the
phrase ``rulemaking and regulatory actions'' as used in DOT Order
5610.1C because the term rulemaking already encompasses regulatory
actions by its definition. In addition, the Department does not include
``research activities'' because most of the Department's research
activities would not have environmental impacts subject to NEPA. To the
extent that a research activity is an action, it may be appropriate to
categorically exclude an action under CE #9. References to other
environmental requirements are updated and reorganized. The Department
therefore proposes to list certain authorities previously listed in
paragraph 3 of the Introduction section of the 1985 procedures in
Appendix C of proposed part 13. In addition, the Department would not
include statutory references that are not broadly applicable to the
Department, are substantively addressed elsewhere in the proposed rule,
or are implemented by OA procedures. As a result, this proposal would
not include the following references: Section 2(b) of the Department of
Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 1653); Section 309 of the Clean
Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.); Section 303 of the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1241); and, where
environmental statements are required, Sections 138 and 109 of Federal
aid highway legislation (Title 23); Sections 16 and 18(a) of the
Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970 (49 U.S.C. 1716, 1718); and
Section 14 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 (49 U.S.C. 1601
et seq.).
Sec. 13.3 Definitions
While the 1985 procedures did not contain a definitions section,
the Department determined that it would be helpful to define certain
terms to reduce ambiguity as to certain terminology used in this
proposed rule and by the Department's NEPA practitioners. This proposed
section would incorporate by reference the definitions from the CEQ
regulations set forth in 40 CFR 1508.1, and supplement those
definitions where necessary. This section would define the following
terms:
(a) Applicant. This definition would define ``applicant'' broadly
to reflect the variety of applicants encountered across the Department.
This definition also would recognize that some OA NEPA implementing
procedures (OA Procedures) provide that the applicant will carry out
some of the responsibilities of the OA on its behalf, and therefore
could conduct activities under the Department's NEPA procedures on
behalf of that OA. This definition is intended to provide flexibility
to OAs that administer programs where applicants are responsible for
preparing NEPA documents on behalf of OAs. This includes State DOTs,
transit agencies, and other applicants that prepare NEPA documents or
carry out other responsibilities for the NEPA process pursuant to OA
NEPA procedures. For purposes of this part, the definition of
``applicant'' does not include States that are assigned environmental
review responsibilities pursuant to a memorandum of understanding
executed pursuant to statutory authority under 23 U.S.C. 326 and 327.
States that carry out such assignments are deemed to be OAs for
purposes of this part.
(b) Environmental review process. The Department would include this
term to emphasize that the Department strives to comply not just with
NEPA, but with all applicable environmental requirements in a single
process, so as to ensure efficient project delivery and decisionmaking.
(c) Level of NEPA Review. The Department would include this term to
mean the level of NEPA review required for a particular action (i.e., a
CE, an EA, or an EIS).
(d) NEPA Document. The proposal would use the term ``NEPA
document'' in addition to ``environmental document'' as used in the CEQ
regulations, and would define it more broadly to include an EIS, a
record of decision (ROD), an EA, a finding of no significant impact
(FONSI), or any documentation that may be prepared in the application
of a CE to a proposed action.
(e) Operating Administration (OA): The Department would define
``OA'' to mean any agency established within the Department, and cross
reference to the list of the current OAs in 49 CFR 1.3. As noted in
Section II of this rulemaking, to improve readability of this proposal,
``OA'' would also include a Secretarial Office where that office is
carrying out its own NEPA responsibilities.
Sec. 13.5 Environmental Review Policy
This proposed section would set forth the Department's policies for
evaluating environmental impacts caused by Department actions. This
section would modify language previously contained in sections 1 and 2
of the 1985 procedures and would state in proposed paragraphs (a), (b),
and (c) that the policy of the Department is to: Integrate Federal
environmental objectives into Department programs while avoiding or
minimizing adverse environmental effects wherever practicable;
synchronize NEPA and other environmental requirements into a single,
concurrent process; and apply sound science, reliable data, and a
systematic interdisciplinary approach.
The Department's policies further statutory directives set forth in
section 1313 of the FAST Act to: Develop a coordinated and concurrent
environmental review and permitting process for transportation projects
as well as align Federal reviews; reduce permitting and project
delivery timelines; and facilitate interagency collaboration.
Accordingly, proposed paragraphs (d) and (e) would include instructions
to: Maximize the use of proven strategies to complete the environmental
review process efficiently; and encourage meaningful, proactive, open,
and transparent public participation and collaboration.
In addition, this proposed section would not include certain policy
language from the 1985 procedures to
[[Page 74645]]
update and align the Department's processes with the updated CEQ
regulations and statutory provisions contained in section 1301 of MAP-
21 (set out at 23 U.S.C. 101 note) directing the Department to
accelerate transportation project delivery, reduce costs, and ensure
that transportation projects are completed in a streamlined manner and
that environmental reviews are efficient and effective. The Department
will continue to conduct environmental reviews consistent with 40 CFR
1501.3 and other authorities, where applicable, including Section 4(f)
(23 U.S.C. 138 and 49 U.S.C. 303). For purposes of streamlining the
procedures, the Department would clarify in Appendix C its expectation
that OAs would integrate into the NEPA process compliance with
substantive environmental laws. As to this section, the Department is
of the view that it is not necessary to include specific references
regarding: Preservation of the natural beauty of the countryside and
public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and
historic sites; preservation, restoration, and improvement of wetlands;
improvement of the urban physical, social, and economic environment;
and provision of opportunities for disadvantaged persons. These matters
are otherwise covered in substantive environmental laws.
The Department would not include language stating that the EIS,
FONSI, and determination that a proposed action is categorically
excluded serve as the record of compliance with the Department's
environmental review policy, NEPA procedures, and other environmental
statutes and Executive orders. The proposal recognizes that an EIS
contains analyses, but is not a decision document like a FONSI or CE
determination, and an EIS alone is not final agency action. See 40 CFR
1500.3(c) and 85 FR at 43318.
B. Subpart B--NEPA Review Process
Sec. 13.7 Managing NEPA Compliance
Proposed Sec. 13.7 would be a new addition to the Department's
implementing procedures. This section would list the roles and
responsibilities within the Department for implementing NEPA, the CEQ
regulations, this proposed rule, OA implementing procedures, and other
applicable laws.
The CEQ regulations introduce the term ``senior agency official''
to differentiate between an agency decisionmaker for an individual
action and the agency official who oversees the agency's overall
compliance with NEPA. 40 CFR 1508.1(dd). CEQ acknowledged that multiple
individuals may carry out these responsibilities in agencies that have
subunits with their own agency procedures or NEPA compliance programs.
85 FR 43304, 43315 (July 16, 2020). Within DOT, OAs carry out their own
NEPA compliance programs. Accordingly, proposed paragraph (a) would
identify the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy (Assistant
Secretary) as the senior agency official responsible for implementing
NEPA, establishing NEPA policy, and identifying the OA that will serve
as the lead agency for all actions taken by the Department pursuant to
49 CFR 1.25a(a)(2). For example, to create efficiencies, the senior
agency official may designate one OA to act as the lead agency and to
prepare the environmental documentation on behalf of all OAs for
certain actions, such as when a multimodal project receives funding
from or requires approval by one or more OAs. In addition, consistent
with CEQ's direction and to maximize efficiency, these procedures
would, in certain instances, permit an OA Administrator to carry out
the responsibilities of a senior agency official at an OA level. For
example, paragraph (c) of Sec. 13.19 would permit either the Assistant
Secretary or an OA Administrator to act as the senior agency official
for purposes of allowing an OA to exceed the presumptive limit of 75
pages and to establish a new page limit for the EA. Similarly, for
purposes of setting EA time limits for EAs, paragraph (c) of Sec.
13.19 would authorize either official to set new time limits. Finally,
consistent with the Department's Interim Guidance on Page Limits for
National Environmental Policy Act Documents and Focused Analyses (84 FR
44351 (August 23, 2019)), the Department would reserve to the Assistant
Secretary in Sec. 13.23(f) through (g) similar decisionmaking
authority for EISs.
Proposed paragraph (b) would identify the Office of the Secretary
of Transportation, Office of Policy Development, Strategic Planning,
and Performance (Office of Policy) as the responsible office for NEPA
implementation and compliance with related environmental requirements,
and as the source of additional environmental review process
information. It would require OAs to consult with the Office of Policy,
and in turn with the Office of the General Counsel (OGC), in certain
situations.
Proposed paragraph (c) would identify OGC as legal counsel to the
Office of Policy on topics related to the implementation and
interpretation of NEPA, the CEQ regulations, this proposed rule, and
other applicable laws; charge OGC with providing legal sufficiency
determinations on Department NEPA documents; and charge OGC with
coordinating with OAs and the Department of Justice on NEPA-related
litigation.
Proposed paragraph (d) would identify this proposal as a supplement
to CEQ regulations that sets forth procedures specific to Department
actions, with which all OAs must comply. This provision originally
appeared in the Introduction section of the 1985 procedures.
Proposed paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) would require each OA to
issue or modify its NEPA implementing procedures through an Order or
regulations consistent with this proposal, the CEQ regulations, and
other applicable laws. This section would also outline the minimum
requirements of each OA's procedures, and the process that OAs may use
to revise existing or create new provisions. This direction was
originally found at section 20 of the 1985 procedures and has been
updated to reflect the updated CEQ regulations (85 FR 43304 (July 16,
2020)). Finally, this proposed section would authorize OAs, subject to
40 CFR 1507.3(a), to rely on their existing procedures until their new
procedures are reviewed and revised, and to use, on a discretionary
basis, portions of the Department's procedures to the extent such
direction has not been incorporated into the OA's procedures.
Sec. 13.9 Planning and Early Coordination
Proposed Sec. 13.9 would retain the direction provided in the 1985
procedures at section 3, ``Planning and Early Coordination,'' and would
incorporate direction for the early portions of the NEPA process.
Proposed paragraph (a) is intended to implement MAP-21 sec. 1320, which
encourages agencies to coordinate with one another ``at the earliest
practicable time.'' Consistent with 40 CFR 1501.2(a), proposed
paragraph (a)(1) would encourage early and ongoing coordination, and
would require early efforts to identify the purpose and need,
environmental impacts, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid,
minimize, or mitigate adverse environmental impacts, as appropriate.
Consistent with requirements in 40 CFR 1506.1, the proposed paragraph
(a)(2) would include a general prohibition against taking actions that
will have an adverse environmental impact or limit the choice of
reasonable alternatives until after a final NEPA determination is
[[Page 74646]]
made; and it would set forth notification requirements should the OA
become aware that such an action may have been taken. Proposed
paragraphs (b) and (c) would build on section 3(b) of the 1985
procedures. Proposed paragraph (b) would require OAs to ensure that
applicants are aware of environmental review and analysis requirements.
Proposed paragraph (c) would require coordination with other OAs;
Federal, State, Tribal, and local resource and regulatory agencies;
stakeholders; and the public to comply with NEPA and other relevant
statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders. Proposed paragraph (d)
would encourage reliance on information developed during the planning
process to avoid duplicating efforts in the NEPA process. This proposal
would encourage consideration of environmental impacts during
transportation planning; however, this process is explicitly exempted
from NEPA pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 134(q) and 135(k). Nevertheless, in
accordance with MAP-21 sec. 1310 and FAST Act sec. 1305, this proposal
would recognize the statutory framework that permits the products of
statewide and metropolitan planning processes to be adopted for use in
the NEPA process. Proposed paragraph (e) would discuss the use of the
scoping process in early coordination to identify significant issues
and to ensure early public involvement in the NEPA process. It further
would instruct OAs to use early coordination tools to accelerate the
EIS process.
Sec. 13.11 Lead, Cooperating, and Participating Agencies
Proposed Sec. 13.11 would include language, with minor revisions,
generally consistent with section 6 of the 1985 procedures, ``Lead
Agencies and Cooperating Agencies.'' This section would outline the
responsibilities of lead, joint lead, cooperating, and participating
agencies consistent with the CEQ regulations, the appropriate timing
for coordination with cooperating agencies, and protocols for
coordinating with agencies that decline a DOT-requested cooperating
agency status. This section would align with the update to the CEQ
regulations, 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1501.8, to highlight the
responsibilities of the lead agency, including the responsibility to
issue a single environmental document, single FONSI, or single ROD for
the lead and cooperating agencies, the responsibility to determine the
scope and significant issues to be analyzed in depth in the
environmental impact statement, and the responsibility to determine the
purpose and need and range of alternatives in consultation with the
cooperating agency. In addition, the lead agency would be responsible
for creating and updating the project schedule in coordination with the
cooperating agencies. Finally, proposed paragraph (d) would recommend
inviting agencies that may have an interest in the proposed action and
are not cooperating or lead agencies to participate in the
environmental review process. This approach is similar to the
participating agency role set forth in 23 U.S.C. 139(d). Since
applicants may carry out the responsibilities of the OA on its behalf,
this proposal would not include the requirement from the 1985
procedures for applicants to serve as joint lead agencies.
Sec. 13.13 General Principles for the NEPA Review Process
This proposal would include a new proposed Sec. 13.13. This
proposed addition would build upon several provisions from the 1985
procedures, including section 2, ``Policy and Intent;'' section 7,
``Preparation and Processing of Draft Environmental Statements;''
section 10, ``Predecision Referrals to the Council on Environmental
Quality;'' and section 14, ``Citizen Involvement Procedures.''
Proposed paragraph (a) would address the integration, to the
maximum extent possible and at the earliest possible time, of all
environmental reviews into the NEPA process to create a single
environmental document.
To expedite project delivery, proposed paragraph (b) would instruct
OAs to incorporate by reference previously prepared and publicly
available analyses, whenever possible, and to include a brief summary
of the material in the NEPA document.
Proposed paragraph (c) would set forth general requirements for
NEPA documents, in accordance with 40 CFR 1500.4(d), 1502.2(a) and (c),
and 1502.8, including that they be written in plain language and that
they address impacts in proportion to their significance.
Proposed paragraph (d) would require OAs to use an
interdisciplinary approach, consistent with 40 CFR 1502.6, and provide
that they may use professional services but must have staff with the
capacity to evaluate these services and must take responsibility for
the final content of their NEPA documents, consistent with 40 CFR
1506.5 and 1507.2.
Proposed paragraph (e) would promote the use of informal conflict
resolution as well as environmental collaboration and conflict
resolution (ECCR), consistent with the applicable requirements related
to issue elevation and resolution outlined in section 6002 of SAFETEA-
LU, 40 CFR 1504.2, and 1504.3(d) through (h), Executive Order (E.O.)
13807, and the September 7, 2012, CEQ/OMB joint ``Memorandum on
Environmental Collaboration and Conflict Resolution.'' Proposed
paragraph (e)(2) would include with revisions section 10 of the 1985
procedures, ``Pre-decision Referrals to the Council on Environmental
Quality''. This proposed paragraph would address the internal process
for addressing or making referrals to CEQ. Overall, the process would
remain the same, with revisions to reflect current practices for
internal clearance and documentation requirements.
Proposed paragraph (f) would provide direction on the use of
tiering to improve or simplify the environmental analysis of actions
that are similar or broad in nature, or when future decisions or
unknown future conditions preclude a complete NEPA analysis, consistent
with 40 CFR 1501.11 and 1502.4(b)(2). It also would encourage the use
of programmatic approaches with resource or regulatory agencies, where
possible. This instruction is consistent with MAP-21 sec. 1305, which
modified the environmental review process mandated in sec. 6002 of
SAFETEA-LU by explicitly authorizing the Department to use programmatic
approaches to conduct environmental reviews. 23 U.S.C. 139(b).
Proposed paragraph (g), which is consistent with 40 CFR 1501.6(c),
1505.2(a)(3) and 1505.3, would instruct OAs to identify in the FONSI or
ROD those measures that the lead agency is adopting and committing to
implement. Due to the importance of ensuring implementation of
mitigation measures, OAs would be instructed to take appropriate steps
to ensure that these mitigation measures are implemented, including,
for third-party actions, by conditioning the agency decision upon the
performance of the mitigation commitments. Where legal authority
exists, OAs would be permitted to provide for mitigation monitoring.
Proposed paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) would identify public
involvement as an important part of each stage of the development of a
proposed action that should begin as early as reasonable and should be
integrated into the NEPA process. The language would remain relatively
unchanged from the original section 14 of the 1985 procedures, but has
been updated to include modern technologies, such as using social
media. Because the CEQ regulations provide flexibility with regard to
public hearings, the Department does not
[[Page 74647]]
include section 14(e) of the 1985 procedures. The revised provision
provides flexibility in implementation and recognizes the importance of
various engagement strategies. In addition, the proposed rule states
that that methods to solicit the views of the public should be tailored
to reach those persons who are interested or affected by the action,
and NEPA documents should be made available online where appropriate
and practicable. Finally, this provision would incorporate CEQ's
requirements from 40 CFR 1500.3(b), 1500.4(n), and 1503.3, that public
comments be solicited as early in the process as possible, that they be
specific, and that OAs provide notice that comments not submitted shall
be forfeited as unexhausted.
Proposed paragraph (i) would recognize that NEPA decisionmaking may
not be delegated to third parties, but that many NEPA documents are
prepared by third parties. Accordingly, this paragraph would address
the use of contractors in preparing NEPA documents and set forth
requirements consistent with 40 CFR 1506.5, which require OAs to
provide guidance, participate in the preparation of, and independently
review and assume responsibility for the content of all NEPA documents.
OAs would retain responsibility for the documents' accuracy, scope, and
contents. The section also would provide guidance for the selection of
contractors. The Department notes that OA procedures may include
different requirements regarding the OA's use of contractors. See,
e.g., 23 U.S.C. 112.
Proposed paragraph (j) would incorporate existing NEPA tracking
requirements at 40 CFR 1501.7(i), 1501.9(d)(5), and 1507.4 under which
certain OAs must report applicable actions on the Permitting Dashboard,
www.permits.performance.gov. The DOT Reporting Standards \3\ clarify
which OAs and which projects must be tracked. Currently the DOT
Reporting Standards require the Federal Highway Administration, Federal
Transit Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, and Federal
Aviation Administration (including Stage agencies with NEPA assignment
pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327) to track all EAs and EISs for infrastructure
projects. In addition, the DOT Reporting Standards reflect the E.O.
13807 requirement that all OAs must track major infrastructure
projects, as that term is defined in E.O. 13807. These reporting
standards have been subject to modification since first established in
2016 and may be subject to additional revisions in the future.
Accordingly, the proposed rule would include only a high-level
reference to the reporting requirements, while the specifics are
addressed in the Reporting Standards to make it easier to revise as
necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The DOT Reporting Standards are available at: https://www.transportation.gov/transportation-policy/permittingcenter/federal-permitting-dashboard-reporting-standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 13.15 Determination of the Level of NEPA Review
Proposed Sec. 13.15 would include with modifications the 1985
procedures at section 4, ``Environmental Processing Choice.'' The
discussions of CEs and EAs in section 4 would be addressed in proposed
Sec. Sec. 13.17 and 13.19, respectively, and the list of references to
OA CEs would be addressed in Appendix B. Proposed paragraph (a) would
require OAs to establish the appropriate scope of the proposed action
using, as applicable, the criteria in 40 CFR 1501.9(e) to determine the
appropriate level of NEPA review. Proposed paragraph (b) would instruct
OAs to ensure that the scope of a proposed action has independent
utility or significance and does not unreasonably restrict the
consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable actions
to ensure meaningful and objective evaluation of alternatives. Proposed
paragraph (c) would require analysis of the potentially affected
environment and the degree of the effects in considering significance,
consistent with 40 CFR 1501.3(b), which includes consideration of
short- and long-term effects, beneficial and adverse effects, effects
on public health and safety, and effects that would violate Federal,
State, Tribal, or local laws protecting the environment where the
effects are reasonably foreseeable and have a reasonably close causal
relationship to the proposed action (see 1508.1(g)). Proposed paragraph
(d) would reflect the Office of Policy's role as the responsible office
for NEPA implementation and compliance and provide guidance to OAs to
notify the Office of Policy for situations involving unresolved
disagreements between the OA and an applicant regarding the appropriate
level of NEPA review.
Sec. 13.17 Categorical Exclusions
Section 13.17 would provide an update to the 1985 procedures at
section 4(c), ``Categorical Exclusions.'' Proposed paragraph (a) would
provide the definition of CEs, consistent with 40 CFR 1508.1(d) and
1501.4, and the requirement to consider whether extraordinary
circumstances are present such that the OA must prepare an EA or EIS.
Proposed paragraph (b) would provide a list of extraordinary
circumstances that an OA must consider before applying a CE listed in
proposed Appendix A of part 13. These represent circumstances in which
a normally excluded action may have significant environmental effects;
this updated list would add substantial increases of noise in a noise-
sensitive area; substantial adverse effects on a species listed or
proposed to be listed on the List of Endangered or Threatened Species,
or designated Critical Habitat for these species; a site that involves
a unique characteristic of the geographic area, such as prime or unique
agricultural land, a coastal zone, a historic or cultural resource,
park land, wetland, wild and scenic river, designated wilderness or
wilderness study area, sole source aquifer (potential sources of
drinking water), or an ecologically critical area; as well as
inconsistency with any applicable Federal, State, or local air quality
standards, including those under the Clean Air Act, as amended;
substantial short-or long-term increases in traffic congestion or
traffic volumes on any mode of transportation; or substantial impacts
on the environment resulting from the reasonably foreseeable,
reportable release of hazardous or toxic substances. This list only
would be applicable to the CEs listed in proposed Appendix A of part
13. However, when updating OA Procedures, OAs would be directed to
consider whether any of the extraordinary circumstances provided in
proposed paragraph (b) are appropriate to add to their list.
Under section 1314 of MAP-21, Congress first amended 49 U.S.C. 304
to establish a process by which OAs could apply CEs to multimodal
projects, as that term is defined in 23 U.S.C. 139(a). Through section
1310 of the FAST Act, Congress later amended 49 U.S.C. 304 so that one
OA could apply the CE established in the procedures of another OA for
multimodal projects, as defined in 23 U.S.C. 139(a)(5). Proposed
paragraph (c) would implement these authorities departmentwide.
The CEQ regulations allow agencies to establish a process to use
other Federal agencies' CEs for their proposed actions after
consultation with the other agencies to ensure that use of their CEs is
appropriate. The regulations require documentation of the consultation
and identification to the public of those CEs that the OA may use for
its proposed actions. 40 CFR 1507.3(f)(5). DOT requests comments on
whether the Department should create such a process and on the design
of any such process, or whether it is more
[[Page 74648]]
appropriate to direct each OA to develop a process in its own OA
Procedures. If the departmental procedures were to include such a
process, the provisions could describe the agency process under which
an agency may borrow another agency's CE, including describing the
proposed action, identifying potentially applicable CEs, documenting
the applicability analysis, consulting with the originating agency,
keeping records, and providing public notice. The Department will
consider appropriate measures or provisions if it elects to establish
such a process.
The CEQ regulations require agencies to review their existing NEPA
procedures to ensure that they are consistent with CEQ's revised
regulations and to adopt, as necessary, agency procedures that improve
agency efficiency. 40 CFR 1507.3(b), 40 CFR 1501.4(a). The Department
undertook such a review, and Appendix A would update and maintain a
list of Departmental CEs. Based on its review, the Department would
propose to add 11 new CEs, eliminate existing CE 3 and the subpart for
existing 6b, and modify the remaining five existing CEs. Modifications
to existing CEs would provide clarity and reflect the Department's
experience with these activities. The Department provides additional
information and justification for updating the existing CEs and
supporting the new CEs in the docket for this rulemaking.
The proposed rule would re-order and re-number the Departmentwide
CEs from the 1985 procedures. In the new proposed CEs, the Department
has identified routine operational activities, including training and
educational activities (proposed CE 3); leasing of space in existing
buildings (proposed CE 6); remodeling existing facilities (proposed CE
7); landscaping and landscape maintenance that does not cause
introduction or spread of invasive species (proposed CE 8);
investigations, research activities, and studies (proposed CE 9);
hearings and public meetings (proposed CE 12); administrative actions
and proceedings (proposed CE 13); financial assistance to an applicant
solely for the purpose of refinancing outstanding debt, where the debt
funds an action that is already completed as a categorically excluded
activity (proposed CE 14); and certain agreements concerning foreign
governments, foreign civil aviation authorities, and international
organizations and the implementation of such agreements (proposed CE
15).
This rule also would add two new CEs relating to rulemaking and
policy activities. The first would cover the promulgation,
modification, or revocation of rules and development of policies,
notices, and other guidance documents that are strictly administrative,
organizational, or procedural in nature; or are corrective, technical,
or minor (proposed CE 10). The second CE would cover the promulgation,
modification, revocation, or interpretation of safety standards, rules,
and regulations that do not result in a substantial increase in
emissions of air or water pollutants, noise, or traffic congestion, or
increase the risk of reportable release of hazardous materials or toxic
substances (proposed CE 11).
Finally, proposed CE 5 would modify existing CE 5 from the 1985
procedures, which incorporates by reference CEs identified in OA
Procedures, and would expressly allow one OA to apply the CE of another
OA. In order to apply a CE listed in another OAs procedures, the OA
that has established the CE in its procedures must confirm that the OA
administering the action is applying the CE appropriately, and that the
action to which the CE is being applied was contemplated when the CE
was established. Therefore, the Department would revise the CE to read,
``Action categorically excluded in an OA's procedures where the action
is administered by another OA. The OA with the CE must provide a
written determination that the CE applies to the action proposed by the
other OA and must provide expertise in reviewing the action being
categorically excluded.''
Over the last decade, the Department has implemented a number of
new programs and projects that go beyond the bounds of a particular OA.
This updated CE would allow the Department the flexibility to
administer its projects and programs more effectively and efficiently,
taking advantage of multiple OAs' resources and expertise, while
ensuring that CEs are appropriately applied to proposed actions. For
example, the Department may ask one OA to administer a grant because it
has extensive experience with that type of grantee, but the underlying
project falls within the environmental expertise of another OA. The
latter OA would determine whether application of its CEs to the project
is appropriate because it is contemplated within that category of
action and whether any extraordinary circumstances are present such
that preparation of an EA or EIS may be required.
Sec. 13.19 Environmental Assessments
Proposed Sec. 13.19 is a new section to address the preparation of
EAs; it would update the 1985 procedures at section 4(d),
``Environmental Assessment,'' which provided guidance for the
preparation of EAs. In accordance with 40 CFR 1501.5 and 1508.1(h),
proposed paragraph (a) would explain when an EA must be prepared.
Proposed paragraph (b) would provide the required elements for an EA,
consistent with 40 CFR 1501.5, while proposed paragraph (c) would set
forth an EA page limit of 75 pages consistent with 40 CFR 1501.5(f)
unless a senior agency official approves in writing an EA to exceed 75
pages and establishes a new page limit. It also would outline the
senior agency official approval required to exceed page limits beyond
these lengths. This paragraph would require the EA to be concise and to
correlate to the magnitude of the proposed action and its anticipated
impacts. Proposed paragraph (d) would provide the requirement that an
EA should be prepared within one year from the agencies' determination
to prepare an EA consistent with 40 CFR 1501.10(a)(1). If, during
development of the EA, the OA concludes that there will be significant
impacts and therefore would not issue a FONSI, the OA would issue an
NOI, and the time limits for EISs would apply consistent with 40 CFR
1501.10(a)(1).
Proposed paragraph (e) addresses the alternatives analysis for EAs,
which may be limited to the proposed action and no action alternative,
and may be analyzed to a degree commensurate with the nature of the
proposed action and the OA's experience with the potential
environmental impacts of similar projects. OAs would be instructed to
indicate a preferred alternative in the EA, if one has been identified.
For those alternatives that were considered and eliminated, the OAs
would be directed to provide a brief justification of these decisions
in the EA. Proposed paragraph (f) would note that EAs should reflect
compliance or plans for compliance with other applicable environmental
requirements, 40 CFR 1501.5(g)(3) and 1502.24, and proposed paragraph
(g) would require an OA to evaluate the environmental issues
independently and take responsibility for the accuracy, scope and
contents of EAs prepared by applicants, 40 CFR 1506.5(b)(2). Proposed
paragraph (h) would require OAs to involve the public, State, Tribal
and local governments, relevant agencies, and any applicants to the
extent practicable, 40 CFR 1501.5(e), and to make EAs available to the
public, 40 CFR 1506.6(b) and 1501.6(a)(2). It would allow OAs to use
their discretion to determine if a draft EA should be
[[Page 74649]]
released for public comment, though OAs would be required to address
substantive comments in the final EA or FONSI.
Sec. 13.21 Findings of No Significant Impact
Proposed Sec. 13.21 would incorporate with updates section 5 of
the 1985 procedures, ``Finding of No Significant Impact,'' continuing
to focus on the CEQ regulatory requirements for a FONSI set forth in 40
CFR 1501.6. Consistent with that provision, proposed paragraph (b)
would set forth the circumstances when an OA may issue a mitigated
FONSI, including identifying the mitigation measures necessary to
reduce the potential impacts below a level of significance; ensuring
the existence of sufficient legal authority and adequate commitment and
resources to execute the mitigation measures; requiring implementation
of the mitigation measures in any agreement with an outside party; and
where appropriate, providing for monitoring and further action when
there is a failure to implement mitigation measures or a failure in
their effectiveness.
As OAs, must make FONSIs available to the public as specified in 40
CFR 1501.6, this section would not include the unnecessary instructions
contained in section 5(c) of the 1985 procedures regarding internal
coordination of FONSIs and circulation of Notices of Availability to
State and area-wide clearinghouses. The proposed rule also does not
include the instruction in section 5(c) that consultation with other
Federal agencies concerning Section 4(f) (23 U.S.C. 138/49 U.S.C. 303),
the National Historic Preservation Act, Clean Water Act Section 404
permits, and other Federal requirements should be accomplished prior to
or during the 30-day period. This requirement to consult applies to all
EAs, not just when a 30-day public comment period is required. Rather
than providing in this proposed rule specific direction on compliance
with substantive requirements contained in other environmental
statutes, the Department instead proposes to include in Appendix C a
non-exhaustive list of relevant environmental reviews, authorizations,
and consultations that OAs would be expected to integrate into the NEPA
process.
Sec. Sec. 13.23-13.27 Environmental Impact Statements
Proposed sections 13.23 through 13.27 would address the
requirements for EISs. To improve clarity, the Department would include
the requirements that apply to both draft and final EISs in proposed
Sec. 13.23, and address requirements specific to draft EISs (DEISs) in
proposed Sec. 13.25, and FEISs in proposed Sec. 13.27. Generally,
these sections would set forth the requirements from the CEQ
regulations, including those in 40 CFR part 1502, and update the
information previously included in the 1985 procedures at section 7,
``Preparation and Processing of Draft Environmental Statements,''
section 8, ``Inviting Comments on the Draft EIS,'' and section 11,
``Final Environmental Impact Statements.'' However, generally
applicable instructions from these provisions in the 1985 procedures
would be addressed in proposed Sec. 13.9.
Proposed paragraph (a) of proposed Sec. 13.23 would set forth when
NEPA requires an EIS (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)), and for clarity and
consistency with 40 CFR 1507.3(e)(2), would note that examples of
typical actions that require an EIS are listed in OA Procedures.
Proposed paragraph (b) would instruct OAs to prepare a notice of intent
to prepare an EIS and publish it in the Federal Register, 40 CFR
1501.9(d) and 1508.1(u). Proposed paragraph (c) would set forth scoping
requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.9, 1506.3, and 1508.1(cc),
including the actions, alternatives, and impacts that must be
considered when determining the appropriate scope of issues to be
addressed in the EIS. The scoping process must consider the type of
action and determine the level of NEPA review. (See Section 13.15(c)).
To determine whether the effects of the proposed action are
significant, the OA must analyze the degree of the effects of the
proposed action relative to the affected environment consistent with 40
CFR 1501.3. Proposed paragraph (d) would instruct OAs to provide early
notice and solicit the views of any State or Federal land management
entity that may be significantly affected by an action proposed by a
State agency or official with statewide jurisdiction (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(d)). Proposed paragraphs (e)(1) through (6) would, consistent
with 40 CFR part 1502, address the format and content of EISs,
including purpose and need, alternatives, affected environment,
environmental consequences, mitigation, and the summary of submitted
alternatives, information, and analyses. The detailed discussion of the
contents of an EIS that is in Attachment 2 to the 1985 procedures, as
well as discussions regarding documenting impacts to specific
resources, is not included in the proposed rule. Specifically, proposed
paragraph (e)(2) would emphasize that the draft EIS should identify the
OA's preferred alternative(s), if one or more exists, unless in
conflict with other laws; otherwise the OA should provide agencies and
the public with the opportunity to assess the environmental
consequences of the preferred alternative prior to issuing a combined
FEIS/ROD, or the OA should provide the public with an opportunity to
evaluate the preferred alternative during a waiting period after the
publication of the notice of availability of the FEIS. Proposed
paragraph (f) would require OAs to comply with document page limits in
accordance with 40 CFR 1502.7. Proposed paragraph (g) would require
that EISs be completed within two years from NOI to ROD. OAs must
obtain approval from the Assistant Secretary to exceed this time frame,
consistent with 40 CFR 1501.10(b)(2). Proposed paragraph (h) would
reflect Departmental policy and CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1502.11(g) to
require OAs to include the total cost of the EIS on the cover page of
an FEIS and a supplemental EIS. The amount reported would include the
entire cost of the environmental review. Proposed paragraph (i) would
set forth the requirement to file EISs with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.10 and would note EPA's
guidance on filing. Proposed paragraph (j) would address public notice
and notice of availability requirements consistent with 40 CFR 1506.6.
This proposed rule would remove from Attachment A of Order 5610.1C
additional guidance not required under the CEQ regulations. Finally,
proposed paragraph (k) would set forth the timing requirements for the
OA's final decision, including the ability to reduce or extend time
periods.
Sec. 13.25 Draft Environmental Impact Statements
As noted in the discussion of proposed Sec. 13.23, proposed Sec.
13.25 would address requirements specific to the preparation of DEISs.
Proposed paragraph (a) would encourage early preparation of the DEIS to
ensure that the decisionmaker can meaningfully consider the analysis in
the decisionmaking process. 40 CFR 1502.5. Proposed paragraph (b) would
encourage OAs to indicate in the DEIS when they intend to issue a
combined FEIS/ROD pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 304a(b) or 23 U.S.C. 139(n). To
ensure meaningful participation in the environmental review process,
proposed paragraph (c) would set forth the specific circulation and
request for comment requirements for DEISs. Pursuant to the updated CEQ
[[Page 74650]]
regulations, an OA must provide for electronic submission of public
comments as well as ensure that the comment process is accessible to
affected persons. See 40 CFR 1503.1(c).
Sec. 13.27 Final Environmental Impact Statements
As noted in proposed Sec. 13.23, proposed Sec. 13.27 would
address requirements specific to the preparation of FEISs and the
Department's unique statutory authorities. For example, section 1319(a)
of MAP-21 clarified that the lead agency can issue an FEIS that
consists of ``errata pages''--rather than a complete, stand-alone
document--if the agency received only ``minor comments'' on the DEIS.
This flexibility existed under the CEQ regulations even before the
enactment of MAP-21; however, section 1319(a) confirmed that this
format is acceptable. It also required that errata pages ``(1) cite the
sources, authorities, or reasons that support the position of the
agency'' and ``(2) if appropriate, indicate the circumstances that
would trigger agency reappraisal or further response.''
In addition, section 1319(b) of MAP-21 provided authority to issue
a combined FEIS/ROD. The FAST Act repealed this provision and codified
identical provisions at 49 U.S.C. 304a and 23 U.S.C. 139. These
provisions direct the Department, when it acts as the lead agency, to
issue the FEIS and ROD as a single document ``to the maximum extent
practicable,'' unless (1) the FEIS makes substantial changes to the
proposed action that are relevant to environmental or safety concerns;
or (2) there are significant new circumstances or information relevant
to environmental concerns and the circumstances or information bears on
the proposed action or the impacts of the proposed action.
Proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) address resolution of comments on
the DEIS in the FEIS. Consistent with 40 CFR 1503.4, proposed paragraph
(a) would provide direction on responding to comments on the DEIS in
the FEIS. Proposed paragraph (b) would provide for the use of errata
sheets consistent with 49 U.S.C. 304a(a), 23 U.S.C. 139(n), and 40 CFR
1503.4(c).
Proposed paragraph (c) would implement the requirements of 49
U.S.C. 304a(b) and 23 U.S.C. 139(n) to issue a combined FEIS/ROD to the
maximum extent practicable, unless the FEIS makes substantial changes
to the proposed action that are relevant to environmental or safety
concerns; or there is a significant new circumstance or information
relevant to environmental concerns that bears on the proposed action or
the impacts of the proposed action. When an OA is the lead agency and
there are cooperating agencies, the cooperating agencies must, to the
extent practicable, issue the FEIS/ROD jointly with the OA pursuant to
40 CFR 1501.8(b)(8).
To ensure the integration of all environmental reviews into the
NEPA process, proposed paragraph (d) would direct the FEIS to reflect
compliance or plans for compliance with other environmental
requirements; should such compliance not be possible by the time the
FEIS is prepared, proposed paragraph (d) would direct OAs that the
document should reflect consultation with the appropriate agencies and
provide reasonable assurance that the OA can meet the requirements.
This rule would not include section 12 of the 1985 procedures,
``Determinations Under Section 4(f) of the DOT Act,'' as discussion of
determinations under Section 4(f) is outside the scope of the
Department's NEPA implementing procedures. Proposed paragraph (e) would
reiterate existing delegations for approval of FEISs. Proposed
paragraph (f) would set forth the Department's policy to notify the
Office of Policy for certain FEISs. Finally, to ensure meaningful
participation in the environmental review process, proposed paragraph
(g) would address circulation requirements for the FEIS.
Sec. 13.29 Records of Decision
This new section would reference requirements for an OA record of
decision (ROD). Proposed paragraph (a) would implement the requirements
of 49 U.S.C. 304a(b) and 23 U.S.C. 139(n) to develop a combined FEIS/
ROD. This paragraph would set forth the 30-day waiting period required
by 40 CFR 1506.11(b)(2) in those instances where the OA determines it
is not practicable within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 304a(b) and 23
U.S.C. 139(n) to issue a combined FEIS/ROD. In general, if a combined
FEIS/ROD will not be prepared, and when the proposal requires action by
multiple Federal agencies, proposed Sec. 13.29 clarifies that the OA
should issue a single ROD with the other Federal agencies. Furthermore,
for expediency, proposed Sec. 13.29 would allow the OA to integrate
the ROD into another record or decision document, such as a final rule.
Proposed paragraph (b) would set forth the topics to be addressed in
the ROD, including alternatives, factors balanced in decisionmaking,
and mitigation measures. Proposed paragraph (c) includes a requirement
that the ROD provide a certification by the decisionmaker that the
agency has considered all the alternatives, information, and analyses,
and objections submitted for consideration by the lead and cooperating
agencies in developing the EIS. FEISs certified in accordance with 40
CFR 1505.2(b) are entitled to a presumption that the agency has
considered the submitted alternatives, information, and analyses
including the summary in the FEIS. Proposed paragraph (d) would clarify
that the ROD should not repeat the analysis in the EIS, but should
document the OA's decision and briefly discuss compliance with
environmental laws applicable to the action or procedures, and expected
timeframe for completion of such compliance. Finally, to reflect the
Department's policy of using an interdisciplinary approach, proposed
paragraph (e) would allow OAs to discuss preferences among alternatives
based on relevant economic, technical, or other factors, and OA mission
and authority.
Sec. 13.31 Adoption
Proposed Sec. 13.31 would introduce a new section that is not in
the 1985 procedures. This section would address adoption of NEPA
documents pursuant to the CEQ regulation, 40 CFR 1506.3, and the
Department's discretionary adoption authority under 49 U.S.C.
304a(c)(2). Proposed paragraph (a) would discuss the adoption by OAs of
EISs prepared by a lead agency on an action for which the OA is a
cooperating agency, in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.3(b)(2)), while
proposed paragraph (b) would provide information on adoption when the
OA is not a cooperating agency but the action covered by the original
EIS and the proposed action are substantially the same, including
circulation requirements, in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.3(b)(1).
Proposed paragraph (c) would cover the full or partial adoption of EISs
when the OA is not a cooperating agency and the actions covered are not
substantially the same, in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.3(b). Where the
OA was not a cooperating agency, proposed paragraphs (b) and (c) direct
the OA to issue a combined FEIS/ROD consistent with the directive in 49
U.S.C. 304a and 23 U.S.C. 139(n). Proposed paragraph (d) provides for
the full or partial adoption of an EA. Proposed paragraph (e) provides
for adoption of a CE determination by another Federal agency when the
action in the original CE determination and the proposed action are
substantially the same. When doing so, the OA must document the
adoption consistent with 40 CFR 1506.3(d) and proposed section
13.25(b). Proposed paragraph (f) would
[[Page 74651]]
require re-evaluation of an EIS or EA that is more than 5 years old
prior to its full or partial adoption, in accordance with proposed
Sec. 13.33 and 40 CFR 1502.9(d)(4). Proposed paragraph (g) would
require filing with the EPA when an OA adopts and publish an EIS, and
finally, proposed paragraph (h) would allow an OA to adopt an EA, DEIS,
or FEIS of another OA under 49 U.S.C. 304a(c)(2).
Sec. 13.33 Re-Evaluation and Supplementation
Consistent with 40 CFR 1502.9(d)(4), re-evaluation is a
longstanding practice of the Department to determine whether new
information triggers the requirement to supplement an EIS pursuant to
40 CFR 1502.9(d). A re-evaluation is a continuation of the project
development process, and it does not necessarily re-open the NEPA
decision. Proposed Sec. 13.33 would update and clarify the existing
practice for re-evaluation outlined in section 19 of the 1985
procedures, ``Time in Effect of Statements.'' In addition, the
Department would revise the interval for re-evaluation from three to
five years. Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would encourage the use of re-
evaluation when there are changes to the proposed action or new
circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns.
Additionally, proposed paragraph (a)(2) would require OAs to re-
evaluate in writing DEISs if the OA has not issued an FEIS within five
years of circulation of the DEIS, and FEISs if major steps toward
implementation have not commenced within five years of FEIS approval.
Proposed paragraph (b) would address the CEQ regulatory criteria for a
supplemental EIS, as well as the discretion to supplement, circulation
requirements for supplemental EISs, and the process for the approval of
an alternative circulation procedure. 40 CFR 1502.9(d)(1).
Sec. 13.35 Emergency Actions
Section 1432 of the FAST Act provided for exemptions and expedited
procedures for certain environmental review processes during
emergencies. Specifically, section 1432(b)(1) references alternative
arrangements under 40 CFR 1506.12. Proposed Sec. 13.35 concerns such
alternative arrangements. This new section would also address the CEQ
regulation on emergencies, 40 CFR 1506.12, and related CEQ guidance.
Finally, this section would build on section 17(c) of the 1985
procedures, ``Timing of Agency Action,'', which details the internal
process for consulting with CEQ concerning emergencies.
Proposed Sec. 13.35 would address emergency situations in proposed
paragraph (a) and would provide mechanisms for NEPA compliance where
the OA anticipates significant impacts in proposed paragraph (b) or
non-significant impacts in proposed paragraph (c). In both instances,
this section would provide the internal coordination process for such
compliance.
Sec. 13.37 Environmental Impact Statements for Legislative Proposals
Proposed Sec. 13.37 would address the requirements for legislative
EISs consistent with 40 CFR 1506.8(c)(2). Consistent with the general
updates set forth in Section II of this rulemaking, this proposed
section would also incorporate and revise for clarity the substance of
section 15 of the 1985 procedures, ``Proposals for Legislation,''
Sec. 13.39 International Actions
Proposed Sec. 13.39 would address implementation of Executive
Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions
addressed in section 16 of the 1985 procedures, ``International
Actions.'' \4\ This section would streamline the provision by cross-
referencing to the E.O., rather than repeating its applicability
criteria. It also would direct OAs to prepare any required EIS
consistent with this rule and OA procedures. Finally, this section
would reflect minor edits for clarity consistent with the general
updates set forth in Section II of this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This section addresses compliance with the Executive Order
rather than NEPA. The Executive Order's requirements were not
altered by CEQ's revisions to its NEPA regulations. See CEQ, Update
of the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act: Final Rule Response to Comments
at 551-52 (July 30, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix A--Appendix A to Part 13--List of Departmental Categorical
Exclusions
Appendix A would list the existing, revised, and new departmentwide
CEs. Consistent with the CEQ regulations, agencies or their subunits
may determine that certain categories of actions normally do not have
significant environmental impacts and therefore do not require further
review under NEPA. As discussed in the analysis of proposed Sec. 13.17
in Section III of this rulemaking, this proposed rule would clarify
which categories of activities are categorically excluded and normally
would not require additional NEPA analysis. The Department
substantiated the proposed new and revised CEs by reviewing EA and EIS
analyses to identify the environmental effects of previously
implemented actions, benchmarking other Federal agencies' experience
implementing similar categories of actions, and relying on the judgment
and expertise of the Department's NEPA practitioners. The Department
notes that other Federal agencies have established CEs for activities
that are similar in nature, scope, and effect on the human environment.
The Department provided for CEQ review the proposed draft changes and
justification for each proposed change to the list in this appendix.
Appendix B to Part 13--List of Categorical Exclusions in Operating
Administration Procedures
Appendix B would provide cross-references to the OA CEs. The
proposal would incorporate by reference all current CEs established and
maintained by the OAs for use pursuant to CE #5.
Appendix C to Part 13--Environmental Requirements for Integration With
the NEPA Process
This rule would direct OAs to coordinate and integrate all relevant
environmental and planning studies, reviews, and consultations into
their environmental review process. This instruction is consistent with
MAP-21 sec. 1305, and FAST Act sec. 1304, which requires the Department
to align the environmental review process and substantive environmental
legal compliance. To assist the Department's NEPA practitioners in
harmonizing these reviews, Appendix C would provide a non-exhaustive
list of the environmental requirements that should be integrated with
the NEPA process.
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
(a) Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O.
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulations
(49 CFR Part 5)
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs determined that
this rule is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, as
supplemented by E.O. 13563, because it is related to the agency's
implementation of the CEQ regulations implementing the procedural
requirements of NEPA.
E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 require agencies to regulate in the
``most cost-effective manner,'' to make a ``reasoned determination that
the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,'' and to
develop regulations that ``impose the least burden on society.''. The
rule would implement several changes to Department policies,
procedures, and
[[Page 74652]]
internal coordination to streamline project delivery.
Several provisions are expected to create one-time de minimis
administrative costs for the Department, including the requirement that
OAs update their regulations and revise Department policies and
processes to comply with the provisions in the regulation. The
Department would also incur ongoing de minimis administrative costs due
to staff time required by additional internal reporting and
coordination.
The Department expects that the rule would yield administrative
cost savings as a result of better intra- and interagency coordination
and more efficient program management within the Department. The
Department expects that these potential cost savings from the proposed
rule would outweigh any one-time or ongoing de minimis administrative
costs.
Several provisions could result in savings:
Requiring the use, where appropriate, of coordination
tools including programmatic approaches and interagency agreements
would decrease required staff time and resources by shortening review
times and by reducing the duplication of efforts by the Department and
by State and Federal resource agencies.
Establishing Departmentwide internal reporting and
coordination requirements would allow the Department to allocate
resources better to ensure that the environmental review process
remains on schedule while also improving the identification of
potential issues earlier in the environmental review process.
Setting presumptive NEPA document page limit provisions
and increasing the timeframe that NEPA documents remain valid from
three to five years would reduce the Departmental time and resources
required to develop, issue, or review NEPA documents.
Allowing OAs to share CEs would save Department resources
and staff time by reducing the number of EAs prepared for categories of
projects that another OA has previously determined would not normally
have a significant impact on the environment.
Introducing Departmentwide CEs that include research
activities and rulemakings would reduce the administrative costs of
conducting those activities.
Removing prescriptive EIS contents that were included in
Attachment 2 of the 1985 procedures would allow documents to be
tailored to use a more effective format for communication, thereby
saving the Department and project sponsors time and resources in
document preparation.
Project sponsors may also incur de minimis costs from the rule,
such as staff time to calculate and provide the total cost of the
environmental review process on the final environmental impact
statement cover page. However, the Department expects that project
sponsors would also achieve cost and time savings in the environmental
review process which would outweigh these costs. An emphasis on
programmatic approaches and interagency agreements in this regulation
would save project sponsors staff time and resources by reducing
environmental impact review times and by limiting duplicative
submissions to multiple State and Federal agencies. Additional internal
coordination and reporting requirements would increase the
accountability and transparency of the environmental review process for
project sponsors, and will allow for earlier identification and
mitigation of risks that could otherwise slow down the overall
environmental review process. The Department also expects that the
provisions on page limits and an increase in the timeframe that NEPA
documents remain valid would allow for savings in environmental
document preparation.
The Department also expects that these changes would reduce the
time required for projects to move through the environmental review
process. As a result, projects may be completed earlier, and the
benefits of transportation infrastructure improvements or research
would accrue to the public sooner than they otherwise would have. The
Department expects that codifying the required online posting of
environmental documents would also improve the transparency of the
environmental review process for the public. Finally, shorter
environmental documents would facilitate reviews by decisionmakers and
the public. The Department has issued a page limits policy memorandum,
which would support this proposal, and which encourages using a clear
and concise writing style to meet the page limits. Such environmental
documents would be easier to read and may make it easier for the public
to understand the potential environmental impacts of proposed
transportation projects.
(b) E.O. 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs)
This proposed rule is expected to be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory
action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can
be found in the rule's economic analysis in section IV(a).
(c) Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C.
601-612) requires an agency to assess the impacts of proposed and final
rules on small entities unless the agency determines that a rule is not
expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. DOT has evaluated the effects of this proposed rule
on small entities such as small businesses, small organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions. Based on the evaluation, the
Department anticipates that this action would not have a significant
economic impact on small entities. The proposed rule would not directly
regulate small entities, as the proposed rule applies to the Department
and sets for its procedures for implementing the provisions of NEPA.
Accordingly, the Department certifies that this proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
(d) E.O. 13132 (Federalism)
E.O. 13132 requires agencies to ensure meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that may have a substantial, direct effect 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. DOT analyzed this action in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. This NPRM would establish
internal administrative procedures for the DOT to comply with NEPA.
This action will not have a substantial direct effect or federalism
implications on the States and would not preempt any State law or
regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State
governmental functions because this proposed rule applies to the
Department, not States. This action contains no Federal mandates for
State and local governments and does not impose any enforceable duties
on State and local governments. Because this action addresses only
internal Department procedures for implementing NEPA, consultation with
State or local governments is not necessary. The Department notes that
some states have voluntarily assumed NEPA responsibility pursuant to 23
U.S.C. 327.
[[Page 74653]]
(e) E.O. 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments)
Pursuant to E.O. 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments,'' the Department has assessed the impact of this
proposed rule on Indian tribal governments and has determined that the
proposed rule would not significantly or uniquely affect communities of
Indian tribal governments. The proposed rule deals with administrative
procedures for complying with the requirements of the NEPA and, as
such, has no direct effect on Indian Tribal governments. Because the
proposed rule does not mandate Tribal participation in the Department's
environmental review process, it does not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on Indian tribal governments. The proposed rule will
recognize the obligation to and benefit of including Indian tribes in
public engagement strategies to fulfill relevant environmental review
responsibilities. Accordingly, the funding and consultation
requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.
(f) Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
requires that DOT consider the impact of paperwork and other
information collection burdens imposed on the public and, under the
provisions of PRA section 3507(d), obtain approval from OMB for each
collection of information it conducts, sponsors, or requires through
regulations. The DOT has determined that the proposed rule does not
contain a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and
approval by the OMB under the PRA.
(g) Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Department has determined that the proposed rule would not
impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538). The actions
proposed in this NPRM do not contain any unfunded mandates as described
in the UMRA, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. This proposed rule does not impose any mandates on small
entities. It addresses the Department's procedures for implementing the
procedural requirements of NEPA.
(h) National Environmental Policy Act
The CEQ regulations do not direct agencies to prepare a NEPA
analysis before establishing agency procedures to supplement the CEQ
regulations to implement NEPA. See 1507.3; Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S.
Forest Service, 73 F. Supp. 2d 962, 972-73 (S.D. III. 1999), aff'd, 230
F.3d 947, 954-55 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that a decision to issue
agency NEPA procedures does not require analysis and documentation
under NEPA). The Department's NEPA procedures assist the Department in
fulfilling its responsibilities under NEPA and the CEQ regulations, but
are not themselves final determinations of the level of environmental
review required for particular actions. The Department also anticipates
that this rulemaking would be categorically excluded pursuant to the
1985 procedures. Accordingly, the Department does not anticipate any
environmental impacts from this proposal, and there are no
extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.
(i) Regulation Identifier Number
A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in
the spring and fall of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 13
Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental impact
statements, Environmental protection, Natural resources.
Issued in Washington, DC, on November 6, 2020.
Elaine L. Chao,
Secretary.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation proposes to amend Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations by adding part 13 to read as follows:
Title 49--Transportation
PART 13--ENVIRONMENT REVIEW PROCESS
Subpart A--General
Sec.
13.1 Applicability.
13.3 Definitions.
13.5 Environmental review policy.
Subpart B--Nepa Review Process
13.7 Managing NEPA compliance.
13.9 Planning and early coordination.
13.11 Lead, cooperating, and participating agencies.
13.13 General principles for the NEPA review process.
13.15 Determination of the level of NEPA review.
13.17 Categorical Exclusions.
13.19 Environmental Assessments.
13.21 Findings of No Significant Impact.
13.23 Environmental Impact Statements.
13.25 Draft Environmental Impact Statements.
13.27 Final Environmental Impact Statements.
13.29 Records of Decision.
13.31 Adoption.
13.33 Re-evaluation and supplementation.
13.35 Emergency actions.
13.37 Environmental Impact Statements for legislative proposals.
13.39 International actions.
Appendix A to Part 13--List of Departmental Categorical Exclusions
Appendix B to Part 13--List of Categorical Exclusions in Operating
Administration Procedures
Appendix C to Part 13--Environmental Requirements for Integration
with the NEPA Process
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347; 40 CFR parts 1500-1508; 49
U.S.C. 304; 49 U.S.C. 304a; 49 U.S.C. 310; and E.O. 12114, 44 FR
1957, Jan. 9, 1979, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 13.1 Applicability.
(a) Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C.
4321-4347 (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations implementing NEPA, 40 CFR 1500 through 1508, this part
establishes procedures for the consideration of environmental impacts
by officials of the Department of Transportation (Department or DOT) as
part of the decisionmaking process for DOT actions.
(b) Typical DOT actions may include grants; construction;
regulatory actions; certifications; licenses; permits; waivers;
approval of policies and plans (including those submitted to DOT by
State, Tribal, or local agencies, or other public or private
applicants, unless otherwise exempted); adoption or implementation of
programs; legislation proposed by DOT; and any renewals or re-approvals
of the foregoing. Consistent with 40 CFR 1508.1(q), an action is not
subject to NEPA if, for example, it either does not allow for agency
discretion to consider environmental impacts in decisionmaking or is
not subject to DOT control and responsibility. Loans, loan guarantees,
or other forms of financial assistance may be actions subject to NEPA
when the OA exercises sufficient control and responsibility over the
effects of such assistance.
(c) Consistent with 40 CFR 1501.1, proposed activities or decisions
expressly exempt from NEPA under another statute are not actions. For
example, decisions concerning plans, Transportation Improvement
Programs
[[Page 74654]]
(TIPs), and Statewide Improvement Programs (STIPs) are not actions
pursuant to the express exemptions in 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135,
respectively.
Sec. 13.3 Definitions.
The definitions in 40 CFR part 1508 apply to this part. The
following definitions supplement these for the purposes of this part:
(a) Applicant means an individual; Federal agency, State, Tribal or
local government; corporation; company; or any other party seeking an
approval, financial assistance, special permit, waiver, certification,
or other action from an OA.
(b) Environmental review process means the integrated process for
compliance with NEPA and any other applicable environmental statutes,
regulations, or Executive Orders (E.O.), including those that require a
permit, approval, consultation, or authorization to proceed with an
action.
(c) Level of NEPA review means the appropriate type of analysis
required for a particular action (i.e., a categorical exclusion (CE),
an environmental assessment (EA), or an environmental impact statement
(EIS)).
(d) NEPA document means an EIS, record of decision (ROD), EA,
finding of no significant impact (FONSI), or any documentation prepared
to support the application of a CE to a proposed action.
(e) Operating Administration (OA) means any agency established
within the Department, as listed in Sec. 1.3(b) of this subtitle, or
an office within the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST).
Sec. 13.5 Environmental review policy.
The policies in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section govern
the consideration of environmental impacts at DOT:
(a) Consistent with NEPA, the Department will integrate Federal
environmental objectives into the programs of DOT to ensure the safest,
most efficient and modern transportation system in the world, while
considering measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for adverse
environmental effects wherever practicable, consistent with other
essential considerations of national policy.
(b) The Department will strive to synchronize NEPA and other
Federal environmental requirements and authorizations into a single,
concurrent environmental review process that satisfies the requirements
of all agencies with a role in a proposed action, expedites project
delivery, and is completed within presumptive time limits.
(c) The Department will apply sound science, reliable data, and a
systematic interdisciplinary approach to the environmental review
process, including the use of geographic information systems, as
appropriate.
(d) The Department will maximize the use of proven strategies to
complete the environmental review process efficiently, including the
use of electronic collaboration tools; programmatic agreements and
approaches; and planning processes and products to inform NEPA
requirements pursuant to applicable laws and regulations.
(e) The Department encourages meaningful, proactive, open, and
transparent public participation and collaboration with affected and
interested stakeholders, including Federal agencies, States, Tribes,
localities, and the public in its environmental decision-making process
to avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts.
Subpart B--Nepa Review Process
Sec. 13.7 Managing NEPA compliance.
(a) Responsibility. Pursuant to Sec. 1.25a(a)(2) of this subtitle,
the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy (Assistant Secretary)
is the senior agency official who establishes policy and oversees the
implementation of the NEPA process for the Department. The Assistant
Secretary may determine which OA will serve as the lead agency to
prepare the NEPA document for all actions taken by the Department for a
proposed activity or project.
(b) Office of Policy. The OST Office of Policy Development,
Strategic Planning, and Performance (Office of Policy) oversees NEPA
implementation and compliance with related environmental requirements,
and OAs must consult with or notify the Office of Policy as set forth
in this part. The Office of Policy in turn will coordinate with the
Office of the General Counsel to ensure compliance with legal
requirements. Additional information on the environmental review
process may be obtained from the Office of Policy.
(c) Office of the General Counsel. The Office of the General
Counsel (OGC) provides counsel to the Department concerning the
interpretation of and compliance with NEPA, the CEQ regulations, this
part, and other applicable laws. Where appropriate, OGC determines the
legal sufficiency of the Department's NEPA documents and coordinates
with the OAs and the Department of Justice on NEPA-related litigation.
(d) Applicability. This part supplements the regulations at 40 CFR
parts 1500 through 1508, setting forth procedures specific to DOT
actions. The OAs must comply with the regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500
through 1508, this part, and their own NEPA implementing procedures, as
applicable.
(e) OA Procedures. Each OA must issue or modify NEPA implementing
procedures (OA Procedures), consistent with this part, 40 CFR parts
1500 through 1508, and any other applicable laws or regulations, that
establish requirements for and provide guidance on integrating the
environmental review process into the OA's programs and actions. To the
extent applicants carry out the OA's responsibilities under OA
Procedures (where appropriate and in compliance with 42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(D) and 40 CFR 1506.5), the OA must require the applicants to
comply with the OA Procedures.
(1) OA procedures should include a list of actions that are not
subject to NEPA. (See 40 CFR 1507.3(d));
(2) OA procedures must include lists of actions that normally
require the preparation of an EIS or EA (40 CFR 1507.3(e)(2)(i) and
(iii)); include lists of categorically excluded actions and
extraordinary circumstances (40 CFR 1507.3(e)(2)(ii)) and note which
categorical exclusions require documentation 40 CFR 1507.3(e)(2)(ii));
identify when it might be appropriate to use tiering and programmatic
approaches to facilitate an efficient environmental review (40 CFR
1501.11 and 1508.1(ff)); ensure that decisions are made in accordance
with NEPA's policy and procedures (40 CFR 1507.3(c)); describe the
public participation process; describe the process to ensure early
involvement of interested parties (40 CFR 1501.2(b)(4)); identify where
interested parties can find information about the NEPA process,
including NEPA documents (40 CFR 1506.6(e)); and describe the
procedures for ensuring implementation of mitigation measures committed
to in NEPA documents (40 CFR 1501.6(c), 1505.3, and 1508.1(s)).
(3) OAs must submit proposals for new or revised implementing
procedures to the Office of Policy and the OGC for review and
concurrence prior to CEQ consultation and publication in the Federal
Register. These offices will assist with CEQ consultation. The Office
of Policy and the OGC will provide written concurrence on the final new
or revised implementing procedures. OAs must provide notice of proposed
new or
[[Page 74655]]
revised implementing procedures in the Federal Register for public
comment and provide notice of final new or revised implementing
procedures.
(4) No later than 30 days of the effective date of this part, OAs
must evaluate their OA procedures to develop a plan and schedule to
make revisions necessary to achieve consistency with 40 CFR parts 1500
through 1508 and this part. OAs must submit this determination or plan
to the Office of Policy and the OGC for concurrence. Consistent with 40
CFR 1507.3(b), OAs must, as necessary, develop or revise proposed
procedures no later than September 14, 2021.
(5) Subject to 40 CFR 1507.3(a), to the extent an OA's existing
procedures are inconsistent with 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508, the
regulations in 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508 apply, consistent with 40
CFR 1506.13, unless there is a clear and fundamental conflict with the
requirements of another statute. An OA may choose to apply 40 CFR parts
1500 through 1508 or the procedures of this part to a review begun
before September 14, 2020, or the effective date of this part,
respectively.
Sec. 13.9 Planning and early coordination.
(a) Timing. OAs should begin the environmental review process at
the earliest practicable time in the planning or development of an
action.
(1) OAs should integrate the NEPA process with other processes at
the earliest reasonable time to ensure that planning and decisions
reflect environmental values and avoid potential conflicts that may
delay the process. (40 CFR 1501.2). For actions, likely to require an
EA or EIS, OAs must engage in early identification and evaluation of
the purpose and need; the environmental impacts; reasonable
alternatives (as further described in Sec. 13.19(b) for EAs and Sec.
13.23(a)(2) for EISs); and measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate
for adverse environmental impacts, as appropriate.
(2) Unless otherwise provided by law, prior to making a final NEPA
determination on a proposed action, OAs must not take any action
concerning the proposal that would have an adverse environmental impact
or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives. (40 CFR 1506.1(a),
1502.2(f) and (g)). If an OA becomes aware an applicant is about to
take an action that would have an adverse environmental impact or limit
the choice of reasonable alternatives, the OA must promptly notify the
applicant and the Assistant Secretary, and take appropriate action to
ensure that the objectives and procedures of NEPA are achieved. (40 CFR
1506.1(b)).
(b) Coordination with applicants. OAs must ensure that applicants
are aware of the environmental analysis and review requirements in this
part.
(c) Coordination with other agencies. OAs must coordinate with
other OAs, Federal, State, Tribal, and local resource and regulatory
agencies, stakeholders, and the public, as appropriate, to satisfy
their responsibilities under NEPA and other relevant statutes,
regulations, and Executive Orders, such as those listed in Appendix C
of this part. OAs should communicate early and continually, and
coordinate to identify and resolve issues. OAs may prioritize actions
and improve early coordination with regulatory and resource agencies by
executing interagency agreements such as Memoranda of Understanding
(MOUs), Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs), or Programmatic Agreements, and
using other tools at their disposal.
(d) Use of planning analysis and decisions in the NEPA process. OAs
should, as appropriate, integrate, adopt, and use planning information
or decisions in the NEPA process.
(e) Early coordination. The scoping process (40 CFR 1501.9) is a
tool for early coordination that OAs must use in the preparation of an
EIS in accordance with Sec. 13.23(c) and may use in the preparation of
an EA to identify any significant issues and ensure that all interested
or affected persons have an opportunity to participate early in the
process. As part of scoping, OAs should use early coordination tools,
such as planning, interagency working groups or agreements,
programmatic approaches, coordination plans, and project schedules. OAs
should use such tools prior to issuing the notice of intent.
Sec. 13.11 Lead, cooperating, and participating agencies.
(a) Lead agency. An OA with primary responsibility for a proposed
action, including a multimodal transportation project, generally will
serve as the lead agency for preparing and processing EISs and EAs,
where appropriate, and is responsible for inviting other agencies to
serve as cooperating agencies or otherwise participate in the NEPA
process. (See 40 CFR 1501.7). When an OA serves as lead agency, it is
responsible for the scope, objectivity, accuracy, and content of the
NEPA documents and ensuring completion of the environmental review
process. When more than one OA is involved in an action, the OAs should
determine together their respective roles (i.e., lead agency, joint
lead agency, or cooperating agency) early in the process. However, if
the OAs cannot agree on this determination within 30 days, they must
consult the Office of Policy, which will resolve the dispute. The lead
agency must:
(1) Request participation of cooperating agencies in the NEPA
process at the earliest practicable time;
(2) Meet with a cooperating agency at the latter's request;
(3) To the extent practicable prepare a single environmental
document and joint FONSI or ROD for the lead and cooperating agencies;
(4) Use environmental analysis and proposals from cooperating
agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise to the maximum
extent practicable;
(5) Determine the scope and the significant issues to be analyzed
in depth in an EIS;
(6) Determine the purpose and need and range of alternatives in
consultation with the cooperating agencies;
(7) Create and update as necessary the project schedule in
consultation with the cooperating agencies; and
(8) Notify the Office of Policy if a milestone will be missed and
elevate issues to the Assistant Secretary for timely resolution. (See
40 CFR 1501.7).
(b) Joint lead agencies. An OA serving as a joint lead agency
assumes the same roles, responsibilities, and authority as a single
lead agency.
(c) Cooperating agencies. When serving as a lead or joint lead
agency, OAs should identify and request Federal, State, Tribal, and
local agencies that have jurisdiction by law or special expertise to be
cooperating agencies under 40 CFR 1501.8 and 1508.1(e). When an OA
serves as a cooperating agency, it must fulfill its responsibilities in
coordination with the lead agency.
(1) If another agency declines an OA's invitation to participate as
a cooperating agency, the OA must still provide the declining agency
with a copy of the NEPA document and should attempt to coordinate with
it to avoid potential issues that could delay the action. If that
agency raises concerns or indicates that it may delay or withhold
action on some aspect of the proposed action, the OA should initiate a
conflict resolution process in accordance with Sec. 13.13(e).
(2) When an agency requests an OA to serve as a cooperating agency,
the OA must accept and participate if it has jurisdiction by law, and
should make every practicable effort to accept and participate if it
has special expertise.
(3) If another agency fails to invite an OA to serve as a
cooperating agency when it has jurisdiction by law or special
expertise, the OA should ask the
[[Page 74656]]
lead agency to extend an invitation to participate as a cooperating
agency.
(4) The OA must cooperate on schedule development and elevate
issues that may affect the schedule to the senior agency official for
resolution consistent with 40 CFR 1501.8(b)(6) and (7).
(d) Participating agencies. OAs should invite other agencies
(including other Federal, State, Tribal, or local agencies) that may
have an interest in the proposed action to be participating agencies.
OAs should invite such other agencies as early as possible (before or
during scoping).
Sec. 13.13 General principles for the NEPA review process.
(a) Integration of all environmental reviews into the NEPA process.
To the maximum extent practicable and at the earliest possible time,
OAs should integrate all relevant environmental reviews,
authorizations, and consultations into the NEPA process. A list of
authorities under which these may be conducted can be found in Appendix
C of this part. To the extent practicable, OAs should develop a single
NEPA document for all Federal agency actions necessary for a proposed
activity or project. (See 40 CFR 1501.7(g)).
(b) Incorporation by reference. OAs should incorporate by reference
previously prepared and publicly available analyses wherever possible
and provide a brief summary of the incorporated material in a NEPA
document. (See 40 CFR 1501.12). Types of documents that may be
incorporated by reference include previously prepared studies,
analyses, and, to the extent permitted by law, decisions from prior
environmental reviews. (See 40 CFR 1501.12).
(c) Focused, quality documents. NEPA documents should effectively
and concisely communicate the environmental effects of a proposed
action to the public and the decisionmaker. NEPA documents should be
written in plain language, and be analytic rather than encyclopedic.
(See 40 CFR 1500.4(d), 1502.2(a) and (c), and 1502.8). The depth and
scope of analysis and resulting documentation must be meaningful, high-
quality, relevant, and proportionate to the complexity of the action
and degree of anticipated environmental effects and the affected
environment (See 1501.3, 1501.5, 1502.2(b), and 1502.23).
(d) Interdisciplinary approach. OAs must use an interdisciplinary
approach throughout the planning and preparation of EISs and EAs, as
applicable, and ensure a systematic evaluation of alternatives and
their potential environmental consequences. (See 40 CFR 1501.5(c) and
1502.6). Analyses should identify applicable methodology and explain
the use of best available information. Where appropriate, OAs may use
professional services from other Federal, State, Tribal, or local
agencies, universities, consulting firms, or other experts; however, OA
staff must have the capacity to evaluate the information these entities
provide, and OAs must take responsibility for the final content of
their NEPA documents. (See 40 CFR 1506.5 and 1507.2).
(e) Conflict resolution.
(1) Resolution of disputes. OAs should seek to resolve
expeditiously all disputes as early as possible in the NEPA process
consistent with applicable requirements. OAs should communicate and
collaborate to recognize and resolve disputes as they arise to maintain
constructive relationships among all parties, including other OAs,
Federal or State agencies, Tribes, and members of the public in
accordance with 40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508, DOT Order 5611.1a and
applicable CEQ/Office of Management and Budget guidance. OAs must
report on their use of formal environmental conflict resolution in
annual reports to the Office of Policy and OGC's Office of Operations
on Environmental Collaboration and Conflict Resolution (ECCR). OAs must
notify CEQ and obtain CEQ concurrence, as necessary, to use the John S.
McCain III National Center for Environmental Conflict Resolution (20
U.S.C. 5607b(c)).
(2) Pre-decisional referrals to CEQ. The following procedures apply
to referrals to CEQ under 40 CFR part 1504:
(i) Referrals on DOT actions. If another Federal agency advises an
OA that it intends to make a referral to CEQ, the OA must coordinate
with the Office of Policy. The OA should make a concerted, timely
effort to resolve issues raised by another Federal agency with respect
to an EIS for a proposed DOT action to avoid a referral to CEQ. The OA
should document these efforts in the project record.
(ii) DOT referrals to CEQ on other agency proposals. Whenever
possible, OAs should make efforts to resolve issues informally to avoid
referrals to CEQ. If the issues are not resolved prior to filing the
final EIS (FEIS) with EPA, the OA Administrator must obtain concurrence
from the Office of Policy and OGC to make a referral to CEQ. Referrals
should include all content specified in 40 CFR 1504.3(c). The OA should
notify the Office of Policy as early as possible that a referral is
anticipated. OAs must make formal referrals to CEQ no later than 25
calendar days after EPA publishes the notice of availability of the EIS
or the lead agency makes an EA available.
(f) Tiering and programmatic approaches. OAs should use tiering
(see 40 CFR 1501.11 and 1508.1(ff)) to improve or simplify the
environmental analysis of proposed DOT actions that are similar in
nature, broad in scope, or where future decisions or unknown future
conditions preclude a complete NEPA analysis. This would eliminate
repetitive discussions of the same issues, focus on issues ripe for
decision and exclude from consideration issues already decided or not
yet ripe at each level. OAs should also use programmatic approaches,
where appropriate, including resource or regional specific programmatic
agreements or consultations with resource or regulatory agencies. Where
possible, OAs should develop programmatic approaches that cover the
activities of multiple OAs.
(g) Mitigation and monitoring. The ROD and FONSI must identify
those mitigation measures that avoid, minimize, or compensate for
effects caused by a proposed action or alternatives as described in an
environmental document and that have a nexus to those effects that the
lead agency is adopting and committing to implement, including any
monitoring and enforcement program applicable to such mitigation
commitments.
(1) The OA must take steps to ensure that the mitigation measures
committed to in the ROD and FONSI are implemented. For third-party
actions, to the extent practicable, OAs must condition relevant funding
agreements, permits, licenses, and other approvals on the performance
of the mitigation commitments. Methods of enforcement of commitments
may include withdrawal of funding, permit, license, or approval, and
any other action deemed necessary by the appropriate OA.
(2) Where legal authority exists, OAs may provide for monitoring to
ensure their decisions are carried out and should do so in important
cases. In determining when monitoring mitigation commitments is
appropriate, OAs should apply professional judgment and the rule of
reason. (40 CFR 1505.3).
(h) Public involvement. Public involvement provides an opportunity
for the public to consider, offer input on, and inform proposed
actions, their potential environmental impacts, and proposed
mitigation. The level of public
[[Page 74657]]
involvement should be commensurate with the type of action proposed and
its potential to cause significant impacts, and be consistent with 40
CFR 1501.5(e), 1501.9, 1503.1(a)(2)(v), and 1506.6.
(1) Public involvement in environmental analyses is important at
each appropriate stage of the development of a proposed action, and OAs
should seek public involvement as early as possible. Consistent with 40
CFR 1500.3(b), 1500.4(n), and 1503.3, OAs should ensure commenters are
invited to submit specific comments as early in the process as
possible, and provide notice that comments not submitted shall be
forfeited as unexhausted. OAs should integrate public involvement in
the NEPA process, as applicable, with other public involvement
processes (e.g., 54 U.S.C. 306108 (Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended), State requirements) to the
fullest extent practicable. Methods to solicit the views of the public
include public workshops or meetings; hearings in traditional or non-
traditional formats and locations; social media; new technologies;
advertisements or notices in print or electronic media; and other
appropriate means tailored to reach the relevant audiences. (See 40 CFR
1506.6). When OAs provide for public comment, they must include
electronic submission of comments, with reasonable measures to ensure
the comment process is accessible to affected persons. (See 40 CFR
1503.1(c)).
(2) To allow the public to efficiently and effectively access
information about NEPA reviews, OAs must make NEPA documents, relevant
notices and other relevant information for use by interested persons
available online in a manner consistent with 40 CFR 1506.6(e) and
1507.4. Appropriate domains for publication may include Department/OA
operated websites or project-specific websites. When posted on a DOT
website, NEPA documents must be compliant with the requirements of 29
U.S.C. 794d (section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended).
(i) Use of contractors. Decisionmaking under NEPA is an inherently
governmental function. OAs may use contractors to assist in the
preparation of NEPA documents, but must require contractors to comply
with this part and OA procedures, and follow relevant guidance. OAs
must furnish guidance, participate in the preparation of, and
independently evaluate NEPA documents, taking responsibility for their
accuracy, scope, and contents. (See 40 CFR 1506.5).
(1) When an OA acts as the lead agency and uses a contractor, it
may select the contractor for preparation of an EIS or EA, consistent
40 CFR 1506.5. The OA may select the contractor in cooperation with
cooperating agencies.
(2) Prior to entering into a contract for the preparation of an EIS
or EA, the OA must require the contractor or applicant to execute a
disclosure statement specifying any financial or other interest if
applicable, or stating it has no financial or other interests in the
outcome of the proposed action. (40 CFR 1506.5).
(j) Tracking. OAs must track and report environmental review
milestones in compliance with DOT tracking procedures and other
applicable requirements. Consistent with 23 U.S.C. 139(o) and all
reporting standards issued by the Office of Policy, OAs must post
information for all transportation infrastructure projects requiring an
EA or EIS, including applicable NEPA and any permitting or
authorization actions and associated milestones, to the publicly
accessible Permitting Dashboard. OAs must post and update information
as necessary within timeframes established by the reporting standards.
Sec. 13.15 Determination of the level of NEPA review.
(a) To determine the appropriate level of NEPA review, OAs must
establish the appropriate scope (using the criteria for scope in 40 CFR
1501.9(e)) of the proposed action.
(b) To ensure meaningful and objective evaluation of alternatives,
where applicable, and avoid commitments to proposed actions before they
are fully evaluated, OAs must ensure that the scope of the proposed
action evaluated in an EA, EIS, or CE includes connected actions; has
independent utility or independent significance (e.g., would be a
usable and reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation
improvements in the area are made); does not unreasonably restrict
consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable actions;
and where applicable, connects logical termini.
(c) In considering whether the effects of the proposed action are
significant, agencies must analyze the potentially affected environment
and degree of the effects of the action. Agencies should consider
connected actions consistent with Sec. 1501.9(e)(1). In considering
the degree of the effects, agencies should consider the following, as
appropriate to the specific action, where the effects are reasonably
foreseeable and have a reasonably close causal relationship to the
proposed action:
(1) Both short- and long-term effects.
(2) Both beneficial and adverse effects.
(3) Effects on public health and safety.
(4) Effects that would violate Federal, State, Tribal, or local law
protecting the environment. (See 40 CFR 1501.3(b)).
(d) If there is an unresolved disagreement between the OA and an
applicant regarding the appropriate level of NEPA review, the OA must
notify the Office of Policy, to assist in making the determination.
Sec. 13.17 Categorical Exclusions.
(a) Application of a Categorical Exclusion (CE). CEs are categories
of actions that normally do not have a significant effect on the
environment, and therefore normally do not require the preparation of
an EA or EIS. (40 CFR 1501.4). Appendix A of this part lists
Departmentwide CEs. An ``*'' is used to indicate the CEs that would not
require documentation. OA Procedures may identify additional CEs,
consistent with Sec. 13.7(d); Appendix B of this part identifies the
location of CEs established in each of the Department's OA Procedures
and incorporates those CEs by reference. Paragraph (b) of this section
lists extraordinary circumstances (40 CFR 1501.4), that OAs must
consider before determining that a CE listed in Appendix A of this part
applies to a proposed action. If an OA seeks to apply a CE established
in another OA's procedures (referenced in Appendix B of this part), it
must evaluate the action for extraordinary circumstances identified in
the OA Procedures in which the CE is established \5\ to determine if a
normally excluded action may have a significant effect. If an
extraordinary circumstance is present, an OA may nevertheless apply a
CE listed in Appendix A of this part to an action if the OA determines
that there are circumstances that lessen the impacts or other
conditions sufficient to avoid significant effects. If the OA cannot
apply the CE to the proposed action, it must prepare an EA or EIS, as
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For the purposes of 23 CFR part 771, ``unusual
circumstances'' is synonymous with ``extraordinary circumstances.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Extraordinary circumstances. With respect to the CEs listed in
Appendix A of this part, extraordinary circumstances include:
(1) Inconsistency with any applicable Federal, State, Tribal, or
local law, requirement, or administrative determination relating to the
protection of the environment;
[[Page 74658]]
(2) Substantial increases of noise in a noise-sensitive area;
(3) Substantial adverse effects that are reasonably foreseeable on
the following aspects of the environment:
(i) Species listed or proposed to be listed on the List of
Endangered or Threatened Species, or designated Critical Habitat for
these species, as promulgated under 16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(1);
(ii) Properties protected under 54 U.S.C. 306108 (Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended);
(iii) Properties protected under 23 U.S.C. 138 or 49 U.S.C. 303
(Section 4(f));
(iv) A site that involves a unique characteristic of the geographic
area, such as prime or unique agricultural land, a coastal zone, a
historic or cultural resource, park land, wetland, wild and scenic
river, designated wilderness or wilderness study area, sole source
aquifer (potential sources of drinking water), or an ecologically
critical area; or
(v) Applicable Federal, State, or local air quality standards,
including those under the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, et
seq.);
(4) Substantial short- or long-term increases in traffic congestion
or traffic volumes on any mode of transportation that are reasonably
foreseeable; or
(5) Substantial impacts on the environment resulting from the
reasonably foreseeable, reportable release of hazardous or toxic
substances.
(c) Multimodal projects. For multimodal projects, as defined by 23
U.S.C. 139(a), an OA may use the process created under 49 U.S.C. 304
for the application of another OA's CE for that project.
Sec. 13.19 Environmental Assessments.
(a) When to prepare an environmental assessment. An OA must prepare
an EA when a proposed action is not categorically excluded and a
determination whether to prepare an EIS has not been made or it is
required under OA Procedures; or a normally categorically excluded
action may involve significant environmental impacts, but does not
clearly require the preparation of an EIS. However, an OA need not
prepare an EA if it determines that an EIS is necessary or preferable.
(See 40 CFR 1501.5 and 1508.1(h)). Examples of typical classes of
actions that normally require an EA but not necessarily an EIS are
listed in OA Procedures.
(b) Contents. An EA must include the purpose and need for the
proposal; a description of the proposed action and alternative(s) as
required by 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(E) (section 102(2)(E) of NEPA), as well
as the ``no action'' alternative; the environmental impacts of the
proposed action and alternatives; and the agencies and persons
consulted.
(c) Page limits. EAs must be no more than 75 pages unless a senior
agency official approves in writing an EA to exceed 75 pages and
establishes a new page limit. OAs must obtain approval from an OA
Administrator when the Administrator has been designated as a senior
agency official for the OA or, for OST actions, the Assistant Secretary
if an EA is anticipated to exceed the page limits. An EA should be as
concise as possible while proportional to the magnitude of the proposed
action and anticipated impacts.
(d) Time limits: EAs should be completed within one year from the
agency's' determination to prepare an EA. If during development of the
EA, the OA concludes that there will be significant impacts, the OA
should issue an NOI and the time limits for EISs would apply. OAs must
obtain approval from an OA Administrator when the Administrator has
been designated as a senior agency official for the OA or, for OST
actions, the Assistant Secretary if an EA needs a longer time period
than one year. This request must be in writing and provide a reasonable
timeframe for the OA to complete the EA. 40 CFR 1501.10(a)(1).
(e) Alternatives. The EA must include the alternatives the OA will
consider in its decisionmaking, which may be limited to the proposed
action and no action alternative to the extent consistent with
applicable authority including NEPA Section 102(2)(E). The EA should
address alternatives to a degree commensurate with the nature of the
proposed action and OA experience with the environmental issues
involved. The EA should indicate a preferred alternative, if the OA
identified one. For alternatives considered and eliminated from further
study, an EA should briefly explain why they were eliminated.
(f) Compliance with other applicable environmental laws,
regulations and orders. In accordance with Sec. 13.13(a), the EA
should reflect compliance or plans for compliance with the requirements
of other applicable environmental laws, regulations, and orders, such
as those listed in Appendix C of this part.
(g) Independent evaluation. If an applicant prepares an EA, the OA
must independently evaluate the environmental issues and take
responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and contents of the EA. (40 CFR
1506.5(b)(2)).
(h) Public comment. An OA must involve the public, State, Tribal
and local governments, relevant agencies, and any applicants to the
extent practicable in the development of the EA. (40 CFR 1501.5(e)). At
its discretion, an OA may prepare a draft EA for public comment. When
an OA prepares a draft EA for public comment, it must consider
substantive comments received on a draft EA in the final EA or FONSI.
An OA must make EAs available to the public. (See 40 CFR 1506.6(b)). In
the circumstances defined in 40 CFR 1501.6(a)(2), a copy of the EA
should be made available to the public for a period of not less than 30
days before the FONSI is made and the action is implemented.
Sec. 13.21 Findings of No Significant Impact.
(a) Contents. A FONSI must briefly explain why a proposed action
analyzed in an EA will not have a significant impact on the environment
and therefore does not require the preparation of an EIS. (40 CFR
1501.6). A FONSI must include the EA or summarize it and incorporate
the EA by reference, and must note any other related NEPA documents.
(See 40 CFR 1501.6(b) and 1501.9(f)(3)). An OA must make the FONSI
available to the public as specified in 40 CFR 1506.6(b) and consistent
with 40 CFR 1507.4 and OA Procedures.
(b) Mitigated FONSIs. In accordance with Sec. 13.13(g), an OA may
rely on mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant adverse
impacts below the level of significance that would trigger the
preparation of an EIS. To use this approach, the OA must:
(1) Describe in the FONSI the mitigation measures necessary to
reduce the potential impacts to a level below significance;
(2) Ensure that sufficient legal authority and an adequate
commitment of resources exist to execute the mitigation measures,
including funding as necessary;
(3) Ensure that the articles of agreement, award or grant
agreement, permit, license, authorization, or other document reflecting
the OA's final decision on the action will require implementation of
the mitigation measures;
(4) Ensure that any monitoring strategies described in the FONSI
will be adopted when the OA deems them appropriate for the particular
action and set of mitigation measures. This may include making an
applicant responsible for implementing the monitoring strategies.
Environmental Management Systems may be used for
[[Page 74659]]
tracking and monitoring mitigation commitments; and
(5) Provide for corrective action, where appropriate, in the event
of a failure to implement the mitigation measures or a failure in the
effectiveness of the mitigation measures.
Sec. 13.23 Environmental Impact Statements.
(a) When to prepare an EIS. An OA must prepare an EIS for any
proposed major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of
the human environment (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). Examples of typical
actions that normally require an EIS are listed in OA Procedures.
(b) Notice of Intent. To initiate an EIS, the OA must publish a
notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register (40
CFR 1501.9(d) and 1508.1(u)).
(c) Scoping. The OA must determine the scope of and the significant
issues to be analyzed in depth in the EIS, and it must identify and
eliminate from detailed study the issues that are not significant or
covered by prior environmental review (40 CFR 1501.9(f)(1); see also 40
CFR 1506.3 and 1508.1(cc)). To determine significance, the OA must
evaluate the potentially affected environment and the degree of the
effects of the proposed action. See Section 13.15(c).
(d) EISs impacts on another State or a Federal land management
entity. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(D) (NEPA Section 102(2)(D)),
where a State agency or official with statewide jurisdiction initiates
a proposed action that may have significant impacts on any other State
or a Federal land management entity, the OA must provide early notice
to and solicit the views of those State or Federal land management
entities.
(e) Format and content. The format of the EIS must be consistent
with the format provided at 40 CFR 1502.10, unless the OA determines
there is a more effective format for communication that encourages good
analysis and clear presentation of alternatives, and include the
following: A cover (40 CFR 1502.11); a summary (40 CFR 1502.12); a
table of contents (40 CFR 1502.10(a)(3)); a list of preparers (40 CFR
1502.18); and appendices (40 CFR 1502.19), if the OA prepares any. The
EIS must include the following:
(1) Purpose and need. The EIS must briefly describe the underlying
purpose and need for the proposed action. (40 CFR 1502.13).
(2) Alternatives. Consistent with 40 CFR 1502.14 and 1508.1(z), the
OA must evaluate reasonable alternatives, including the proposed action
and the no action alternative, and a reasonable range of alternatives
that are technically and economically feasible, meet the purpose and
need for the proposed action, and, where applicable, meet the goals of
the applicant. The OA should present the environmental impacts of the
proposal and alternatives in comparative form. The OA should limit
consideration to a reasonable number and reasonable range of
alternatives. The EIS must identify alternatives considered but
eliminated from detailed analysis and briefly discuss the reasons for
their exclusion. The Draft EIS (DEIS) should identify the OA's
preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, unless in
conflict with other laws. If the DEIS did not identify the preferred
alternative, the OA should provide agencies and the public with an
opportunity to assess the environmental consequences of the preferred
alternative prior to issuing a combined FEIS/ROD, or the OA should
provide for a waiting period consistent with paragraph (k)(1) of this
section. The FEIS or combined FEIS/ROD must identify the preferred
alternative or alternatives unless the requirements of another statute
provide otherwise.
(3) Affected environment. The EIS must succinctly describe the
environment of the area(s) affected or created by the alternatives
under consideration, including the reasonably foreseeable environmental
trends and planned actions in the area(s). Data and analyses must be
commensurate with the importance of the impact. (40 CFR 1502.15).
(4) Environmental consequences. The EIS must discuss the
environmental consequences of the proposal and the alternatives. The
EIS must describe both beneficial and adverse environmental impacts of
the proposed action and reasonable alternatives and the significance of
those impacts. The EIS also must describe any adverse environmental
impacts that cannot be avoided if the proposal is adopted, the
relationship between short-term uses of the environment and long-term
productivity, any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of
resources that would occur, and other requirements of 40 CFR
1502.16(a)(1) through (10).
(5) Mitigation. The EIS must discuss appropriate measures for
mitigating adverse environmental impacts of the proposed action or
alternatives. (See 40 CFR 1502.14(e), 1502.16(a)(9), and 1508.1(s)).
(6) Summary of submitted alternatives, information, and analyses.
The EIS must include a summary that identifies all alternatives,
information, and analyses submitted by State, Tribal, and local
governments and other public commenters during the scoping process for
consideration by the lead and cooperating agencies in developing the
EIS. The OA should either append to the EIS or otherwise publish all
comments that were received during the scoping process that identified
alternatives, information, and analyses for the OA's consideration. The
FEIS must include a summary that identifies all alternatives,
information, and analyses submitted by State, Tribal, and local
governments and other public commenters for consideration by the lead
and cooperating agencies in developing the FEIS. (See 40 CFR 1502.17).
(f) Page limits. The text of the EIS set forth in paragraphs (e)(1)
through (5) of this section must be 150 pages or less, and 300 pages or
less for proposed actions of unusual scope or complexity. OAs must
obtain approval from the Assistant Secretary if an EIS is anticipated
to exceed the page limits. (See 40 CFR 1502.7 and 1508.1(v)).
(g) Time limits. EISs must be completed within two years from the
date of publication of the NOI. OAs must obtain approval from the
Assistant Secretary if an EIS will require a longer time period than
two years from NOI to ROD. This request must be in writing and provide
a reasonable timeframe for the OA to complete the EIS. (40 CFR
1501.10(b)(2)).
(h) Document cost. The OA must include the total cost (Federal and
non-Federal) of the EIS on the cover page of the FEIS and Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), which includes the entire cost
of the environmental review to the extent practicable. (See 40 CFR
1502.11(g)).
(i) Filing with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. OAs must
file EISs with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) when they
are transmitted to commenting agencies and made available to the
public, or immediately thereafter. (40 CFR 1506.10). OAs must file EISs
with EPA in accordance with EPA filing guidance.
(j) Public notice and notice of availability. OAs should notify the
public of the availability of EISs through methods such as online
notices, social media, direct notification to interested parties, and
notices in local media so as to inform those persons and agencies who
may be interested or affected by the proposed action. (See 40 CFR
1506.6(b)). OAs must consider the ability of affected persons and
agencies to access electronic media in providing public notice of NEPA-
related opportunities for public involvement. OAs must notify those
parties who have requested notice
[[Page 74660]]
on an individual action. In the case of an action with impacts of
national concern, notice must include publication in the Federal
Register (through EPA's notice of availability of EISs or a separate
notice) and notice by email, mail, or other reasonable means to
organizations, agencies, and those persons reasonably expected to be
interested or affected by the proposed action. Although electronic
distribution is preferred, the OA should make documents available in
other formats when reasonably necessary and must make available hard
copies of the EIS upon request. The OA must make the EIS available to
the public without charge to the fullest extent practicable or at no
more than the actual cost of reproduction. (See 40 CFR 1506.6(f)).
(k) Timing. An OA may not make a decision on the proposed action
until 90 days after publication of EPA's notice of availability of the
DEIS. (40 CFR 1506.11(b)(1)).
(1) Waiting period. When an OA determines, it is not practicable to
issue a combined FEIS/ROD pursuant to Sec. 13.27(c), it may not make a
decision on the proposed action until 30 days after the publication of
EPA's notice of availability of the FEIS. (40 CFR 1506.11(b)(2)).
(2) Reducing time periods. If an OA believes it is necessary to
reduce the prescribed time periods for EIS processing, it must request
the reduction from EPA, which may reduce the prescribed periods based
upon a showing of compelling reasons of national policy (40 CFR
1506.11(d)), and notify the Office of Policy of this request.
(3) Extending time periods. OAs may grant requests for reasonable
extensions of the comment period when warranted by the magnitude and
complexity of the proposed action or extent of public interest. When
granting an extension, the OA should notify EPA so it may modify its
notice of availability.
Sec. 13.25 Draft Environmental Impact Statements.
(a) Timing of preparation of the DEIS. Preparation of the DEIS
should begin as close as possible to the time a proposal is developed
so that the analysis of the environmental impacts and the exploration
of alternatives can be meaningfully considered in the decision-making
process. For rulemakings, the OA should release the DEIS prior to or
concurrent with the issuance of the proposed rule. (See 40 CFR 1502.5).
(b) Combined FEIS/ROD. Consistent with 49 U.S.C. 304a(b) or 23
U.S.C. 139(n)(2), as applicable, and Sec. 13.27(c), the DEIS should
include a statement of the OA's intent to issue a combined FEIS/ROD and
identify a preferred alternative.
(c) Circulation and request for comment. The OA must make the DEIS
available with an invitation to comment to:
(1) The public;
(2) All cooperating agencies and other Federal agencies with
jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to the
environmental impacts involved;
(3) State, Tribal, or local agencies with authority to develop and
enforce environmental standards;
(4) Any agency that has requested that it receive statements on
actions of the kind proposed;
(5) Interested or affected persons, agencies, and organizations;
(6) EPA;
(7) Federally Recognized Indian Tribes, Alaska Natives, and Native
Hawaiians, as appropriate;
(8) The applicant, if any; and
(9) Other OAs, where appropriate. (See 40 CFR 1502.20, 1503.1, and
1506.6).
(d) Electronic submission. OAs must provide for electronic
submission of public comments as well as ensure that the comment
process is accessible to persons who may be affected by the proposed
action(s). (See 40 CFR 1503.1(c)).
Sec. 13.27 Final Environmental Impact Statements.
(a) Response to comments. In the FEIS, the OA should make every
practicable effort to resolve major, relevant issues identified in
comments on the DEIS, the public involvement process, and consultation
with cooperating agencies. The FEIS should identify any unresolved
major issues, and the consultation and efforts made to resolve those
issues. In response to substantive comments on the DEIS, the OA should
do one or more of the following and state the response in the FEIS:
Modify alternatives including the proposed action; develop and evaluate
alternatives not previously given serious consideration by the OA;
supplement, improve, or modify its analyses; make factual corrections;
or explain why the comments do not warrant further response, citing the
sources, authorities, or reasons that support the OA's position, and if
appropriate, indicate those circumstances that would trigger the OA's
reappraisal or further response. The OA should attach to the FEIS
substantive comments received on the DEIS, or summaries of comments
where comments are particularly voluminous. (40 CFR 1503.4).
(b) Errata sheets. In preparing an FEIS, if the OA makes minor
changes to the DEIS in response to comments, and the changes are
confined to factual corrections or explanations of why the comments do
not warrant further response, the OA may write the changes on errata
sheets attached to the DEIS instead of rewriting the DEIS. (See 49
U.S.C. 304a(a) or 23 U.S.C. 139(n)(1), as applicable, and 40 CFR
1503.4(c)). The errata sheets must cite the sources, authorities, and
reasons that support the OA's position and, if appropriate, indicate
the circumstances that would trigger the OA's reappraisal or further
response.
(c) Combined FEIS/ROD. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 304a(b) or 23 U.S.C.
139(n)(2), as applicable, to the maximum extent practicable, an OA must
expeditiously develop a single document that consists of an FEIS and
ROD, unless the FEIS makes substantial changes to the proposed action
that are relevant to environmental or safety concerns; or there is a
significant new circumstance or information relevant to environmental
concerns that bears on the proposed action or the impacts of the
proposed action. Cooperating agencies must to the extent practicable
issue the FEIS/ROD jointly with the lead agency for transportation
actions. (See 40 CFR 1501.8(b)(8)).
(d) Compliance with other requirements. To the fullest extent
possible, in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.24 and Sec. 13.13(a), the
FEIS should reflect compliance or plans for compliance with the
requirements of other applicable environmental laws, regulations, and
orders, such as those listed in Appendix C of this part. If such
compliance is not possible by the time of FEIS preparation, the FEIS
should reflect consultation with the appropriate agencies and provide
reasonable assurance that the OA can meet the requirements.
(e) Internal review and approval. The Administrator or Secretarial
Officer (or their designee) of the lead agency may approve an FEIS. OAs
must ensure that EISs are evaluated for technical sufficiency
consistent with this part and OA Procedures. The Chief Counsel of the
OA, or designee, must review all FEISs for legal sufficiency. OGC's
Office of Operations must review FEISs prepared by Secretarial offices
for legal sufficiency.
(f) Office of Policy notification. For FEISs on actions involving
novel or emerging technology, methodology, or science; actions opposed
on environmental grounds by a Federal, State, Tribe, or local
government or agency; or, actions opposed by a
[[Page 74661]]
substantial number of the persons affected by such action or actions,
the OA must notify the Office of Policy that the FEIS is under
development. OAs should notify the Office of Policy as early as
possible, and, where practicable, provide at least two weeks' notice
before approving the FEIS.
(g) Circulation. After the FEIS is finalized, the OA must publish
the FEIS (or combined FEIS/ROD). The OA must furnish the entire FEIS to
any Federal agency with jurisdiction by law or special expertise with
respect to any environmental impact involved and any appropriate
Federal, State, Tribal, or local agency authorized to develop and
enforce environmental standards; the applicant; and any Federal, State,
Tribal, and local agencies, and private organizations and individuals
that commented substantively on the DEIS or requested copies of the
FEIS, as well as the entities to which the OA was required to
distribute the DEIS. (See 40 CFR 1502.20, 1503.1, and 1506.6).
Sec. 13.29 Records of Decision.
(a) In accordance with Sec. 13.27(c), to the maximum extent
practicable, an OA must develop a single document consisting of a
combined FEIS and ROD or issue the FEIS and ROD simultaneously,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 304a(b) or 23 U.S.C. 139(n)(2), as applicable.
When an OA determines, it is not practicable to issue a combined FEIS
and ROD, the waiting period set forth in Sec. 13.23(j)(1) applies. In
such cases, and when the proposal requires action by multiple Federal
agencies, the OA should issue a single ROD with the other Federal
agencies. An OA may integrate the ROD into any other record or decision
document, such as a final rule.
(b) The ROD must state the OA's decision, identify all alternatives
the OA considered in reaching its decision, specifying the
environmentally preferable alternative(s); identify and discuss all
factors, including essential considerations of national policy, that
the OA balanced in making its decision and state how those
considerations entered into its decision; state whether the OA has
adopted all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm
from the selected alternative and, as necessary, explain why not; and
adopt and summarize any monitoring and enforcement program where
applicable for any mitigation. (See 40 CFR 1505.2(a)).
(c) The ROD must provide a certification by the decisionmaker that
the agency has considered all the alternatives, information, analysis,
and objections submitted by State, tribal and local governments and
public commenters for consideration by the lead and cooperating
agencies in developing the EIS. This certification establishes a
presumption that the agency has considered the submitted alternatives,
information, and analyses including the summary in the FEIS. (See 40
CFR 1505.2(b)).
(d) The ROD should not repeat analysis contained in the EIS but
rather incorporate it by reference in the OA's decision; and briefly
document compliance with all environmental laws applicable to the
action, or the procedures and expected timeframe for completion of such
compliance. Consistent with 40 CFR 1505.3, the ROD should also include,
as appropriate, any required mitigation commitments and describe the
monitoring measures being implemented.
(e) The ROD may discuss preferences among alternatives based on
relevant economic, technical, or other factors, as well as OA mission
and authority.
Sec. 13.31 Adoption.
(a) If an OA is a cooperating agency for an EIS, it may adopt
without publishing the lead agency's original EIS after conducting an
independent review of the statement and concluding that its comments
and suggestions have been satisfied. (See 40 CFR 1506.3(b)(2)). In the
case of an FEIS, the OA may issue a ROD simultaneous with the adoption.
(b) If an OA is not a cooperating agency, but the action covered by
the original EIS and the proposed action are substantially the same,
the OA is not required to publish it except as an FEIS. (See 40 CFR
1506.3(b)(1)). To the maximum extent practicable, the OA must issue a
combined FEIS and ROD consistent with 49 U.S.C. 304a(b) or 23 U.S.C.
139(n), as applicable, and Sec. 13.27(c).
(c) If an OA is not a cooperating agency and the OA's proposed
action and the action covered by the original EIS are not substantially
the same, the OA may adopt the EIS or a portion thereof as a draft and,
after making all necessary revisions to the document, publish it. (40
CFR 1506.3(b)). If the OA intends to issue a combined FEIS/ROD, the
recirculation should include a statement of the OA's intent to issue a
combined document.
(d) An OA may adopt, in whole or in part, another Federal agency's
draft or final EA if the OA determines, based on an independent
evaluation, that the document meets the applicable standards for an EA
in 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508, this part, and its OA Procedures.
The OA must notify the public consistent with 40 CFR 1506.6.
(e) An OA may adopt a CE determination of another agency when the
action in the original CE determination and the proposed action are
substantially the same. When doing so, the OA must document the
adoption. (See 40 CFR 1506.3(d)).
(f) Before adopting all or a portion of another Federal agency's
EIS or EA that is more than five years old, an OA must re-evaluate the
relevant portion of the other agency's EA or EIS in accordance with
Sec. 13.33.
(g) When an OA adopts and publishes an EIS, it must file it with
EPA in accordance with EPA filing guidance. (40 CFR 1506.10). When an
OA adopts an EIS without republishing, it must notify EPA.
(h) An OA may adopt a DEIS, EA, or FEIS of another OA in accordance
with 49 U.S.C. 304a(c)(2).
Sec. 13.33 Re-evaluation and supplementation.
(a) Re-evaluation. Consistent with 40 CFR 1502.9(d)(4), when an
action is not complete and a decision remains to occur, a re-evaluation
is a process that OAs should use to evaluate an existing CE
determination, EA, or EIS to determine whether it remains adequate,
accurate, and valid, or whether a supplemental NEPA analysis is needed.
(1) An OA should engage in a re-evaluation, consistent with its OA
Procedures, where applicable, when, prior to the OA's completion of an
action, there are changes in the proposed action that are relevant to
environmental concerns; or there are new circumstances or information
relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action
or its impacts.
(2) An OA must re-evaluate in writing a DEIS if the OA has not
issued an FEIS within five years from the circulation date of the DEIS.
An OA must re-evaluate in writing an FEIS if major steps toward
implementation have not commenced within five years from the date of
approval of the FEIS or FEIS supplement.
(b) Supplemental EAs and EISs. OAs must prepare a supplemental EA
or EIS when, prior to the OA's completion of an action, there are
substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to
environmental concerns, or there are significant new circumstances or
information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the
proposed action or its impacts. (40 CFR 1502.9(d)(1)). In addition, an
OA may voluntarily prepare a supplemental EA or EIS when the OA
determines,
[[Page 74662]]
consistent with its OA Procedures and 40 CFR 1502.9(d)(2), that the
purpose of NEPA will be furthered by doing so. An OA must prepare,
publish, and file a supplemental EA or EIS as an EA or DEIS and FEIS
unless CEQ approves alternative procedures. (40 CFR 1502.9(d)(3)).
Where there are compelling reasons to follow alternative procedures,
the OA must consult CEQ for approval and notify the Office of Policy.
Sec. 13.35 Emergency actions.
(a) Emergency circumstances. Emergency circumstances may require
immediate actions that prevent following standard NEPA procedures. For
example, immediate threats to human health or safety, or immediate
threats to valuable natural resources may make it necessary to take an
action with significant environmental impact without following standard
NEPA procedures. OAs (which should consult with CEQ) must limit such
alternative arrangements to the actions necessary to control the
immediate impacts of the emergency. When time permits, OAs should
prepare environmental documentation. Alternative arrangements for NEPA
compliance are permitted for emergency actions. (See 40 CFR 1506.12 and
Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, Pub. L. 114-94, sec.
1432).
(b) Significant impacts. When emergency circumstances make it
necessary to take an action with significant or potentially significant
environmental impacts, without observing provisions of this part, OA
Procedures, or 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508, the OA should consult
with CEQ. (See 40 CFR 1506.12). OAs should notify the Office of Policy
of the consultation and where time allows, provide an opportunity for
the Office of Policy to review any alternative arrangements. The
alternative arrangements should be limited to actions necessary to
control the immediate impacts of the emergency.
(c) Non-significant impacts. When the expected environmental
impacts of the proposed action are not considered significant and the
action cannot be categorically excluded, to the extent practicable, the
OA should prepare a focused EA that complies with this part, OA
Procedures, and 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508.
Sec. 13.37 Environmental Impact Statements for legislative
proposals.
(a) Preparation. An OA must prepare and publish a legislative EIS
(LEIS) for any legislative proposal for which DOT has primary
responsibility and involves significant environmental impacts.
Procedures for preparing an LEIS are found at 40 CFR 1506.8. The OA
originating the legislation must prepare the LEIS. Except as provided
by 40 CFR 1506.8(c)(2), an OA does not need to prepare both a draft and
final LEIS.
(b) Processing. The Office of Policy and OGC must concur on the
LEIS. OGC's Office of Legislation will submit the LEIS to the Office of
Management and Budget for circulation in the normal legislative
clearance process. The LEIS is part of the formal transmittal of a
legislative proposal to Congress. However, the LEIS may be transmitted
up to 30 days after the formal transmittal (40 CFR 1506.8(b)).
Sec. 13.39 International actions.
(a) Executive Order 12114, ``Environmental Effects Abroad of Major
Federal Actions'' (Jan. 4, 1979), applies to major Federal actions
having significant environmental impacts outside of the United States
and its territories and possessions. If an EIS is required under E.O.
12114, section 2-4(a)(i), the OA must prepare it in compliance with
this part and the OA Procedures.
(b) If an OA anticipates communication with a foreign government
concerning agreements and other arrangements related to environmental
studies or documentation, the OA must coordinate such communication
with the U.S. Department of State, in consultation with the Office of
Policy and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and
International Affairs (See E.O. 12144, sec. 3-2).
Appendix A to Part 13--List of Departmental Categorical Exclusions
1. Routine procedural, administrative, financial, and management
actions necessary to support the normal conduct of DOT business.
Routine procurements and contract actions for goods and services
including general supplies, equipment, utility services, contractor
services, and personnel services.*
2. Personnel actions including recruiting, hiring, promotions,
processing, paying, and recordkeeping.*
3. Training, technical assistance, and educational and
informational programs and activities.*
4. Operating or maintenance subsidies or agreements, such as
operating subsidies to transit agencies or air carriers under the
Essential Air Service program, when the subsidy or agreement will
not result in a change in the effect on the environment.
5. Actions categorically excluded in OA Procedures \6\ where the
action is administered by another OA. The OA with the CE must
provide a written determination that the CE applies to the action
proposed by the other OA and must provide expertise in reviewing the
action being categorically excluded. The extraordinary circumstances
provided in the OA Procedures where the CE is listed should be
considered in lieu of the extraordinary circumstances provided in
Sec. 13.17(b). This CE is not applicable to actions that meet the
definition of multimodal project in 23 U.S.C. 139(a); instead, an OA
may follow the process in Sec. 13.17(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Appendix B to part 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Leasing of space in existing buildings or facilities.
7. Remodeling existing buildings or facilities including
maintenance, reconstruction, rehabilitation, retrofit, or upgrades
of existing buildings, facilities, or systems, such as electrical
and plumbing systems, replacement of siding, roof rehabilitation,
resurfacing, or reconstruction of paved areas.
8. Gardening, landscaping, and maintenance of existing
landscaping that does not cause or promote the introduction or
spread of invasive species that would harm the native ecosystem.
9. Investigations, research activities, and studies including
data collection and analysis, information gathering, document
preparation, and information dissemination.*
10. Promulgation, modification, or revocation of rules, issuance
of rulings or interpretations, and the development and publication
of policies, orders, directives, notices, procedures, manuals,
advisory circulars, and other guidance documents that are
administrative, organizational, or procedural in nature, or are
corrective, technical, or minor.*
11. Promulgation, modification, revocation, or interpretation of
safety standards, rules, and regulations that do not result in a
substantial increase in emissions of air or water pollutants, noise,
or traffic congestion, or increase the risk of reportable release of
hazardous materials or toxic substances in any mode of
transportation.
12. Hearings, meetings, and public outreach activities.*
13. Administrative actions and proceedings, such as rendering
decisions on petitions for rulemaking and petitions for
reconsideration.*
14. Financial assistance to an applicant solely for the purpose
of refinancing outstanding debt, where the debt funds an action that
is already completed.*
15. Agreements with foreign governments, foreign civil aviation
authorities, international organizations, or U.S. Government
departments or agencies calling for cooperative activities or the
provision of technical assistance, advice, equipment, funds, or
services to those parties, and the implementation of such
agreements; negotiations and agreements to establish and define
bilateral safety relationships with foreign governments and the
implementation of such agreements.*
16. The following actions relating to economic regulation of
airlines:
a. Actions approving an agreement between an air carrier and a
foreign air carrier; acquisition of control, merger, consolidation,
or interlocking relationship;*
[[Page 74663]]
b. Finding a U.S. or foreign air carrier fit under 49 U.S.C.
chapters 411 or 413;*
c. Approving or setting carrier fares or rates;*
d. Making a determination on the reasonableness of a fee imposed
by an airport proprietor on a U.S. or foreign air carrier;*
e. Route awards involving turboprop aircraft having a capacity
of 60 seats or less and a maximum payload capacity of 18,000 pounds
or less;
f. Route awards that do not involve supersonic service and will
not result in an increase in commercial aircraft operations of one
or more percent;
g. Determinations on termination of airline employees;*
h. Actions relating to consumer protection, including
regulations;*
i. Authorizing carriers to serve airports already receiving the
type of service authorized, which does not result in significant air
quality, noise or other adverse environmental consequences;
j. Granting temporary or emergency authority;
k. Registration of an air taxi operator pursuant to 14 CFR part
298; and
l. Granting of charter authority to a U.S. or foreign air
carrier under 49 U.S.C. chapters 411 or 413.
``*'' indicates an undocumented CE
Appendix B to Part 13--List of Categorical Exclusions in Operating
Administration Procedures
This list identifies the location of categorical exclusions
(CEs) currently established in each of the Department's OA
Procedures. These CEs are incorporated by reference and may require
additional approval by the relevant OA. These CEs are subject to
review for the extraordinary circumstances contained in the relevant
OA procedures. The Department will update the citations contained in
this list as necessary.
(a) CEs for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are
located in FAA Order 1050.1F, Paragraph 5-6 (80 FR 44208, July 24,
2015).
(b) CEs for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are
located at 23 CFR 771.117.
(c) CEs for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA) are located at FMCSA Order 5610.1, Appendix 2 (69 FR 9680,
March 1, 2004).
(d) CEs for the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) are
located in 23 CFR 771.116(c).
(e) CEs for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) are located
in 23 CFR 771.118.
(f) CEs for the Maritime Administration (MARAD) are located at
Maritime Administration Order No. 600-1, Appendix 1 (50 FR 11606,
March 22, 1985).
(g) CEs for the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
(SLSDC) are located at SLSDC Order 10-5610.1C, Paragraph 6b (46 FR
28795, May 28, 1981).
Appendix C to Part 13--Environmental Requirements for Integration With
the NEPA Process
As noted in Sec. 13.13(a), Operating Administrations should
coordinate and integrate all relevant environmental reviews,
authorizations, and consultations into the NEPA process. The
following is a non-exhaustive list of authorities under which these
may be conducted (subject to further amendment, repeal, rescission,
revocation, or other change):
1. Section 4(f), 23 U.S.C. 138 and 49 U.S.C. 303.
2. Section 176 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7506,
and its implementing regulations: 40 CFR part 51, subpart T and part
93, subpart A (Transportation Conformity) or 40 CFR part 51, subpart
W and part 93, subpart B (General Conformity).
3. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, 54 U.S.C. 306108 (Section 106).
4. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended, 16
U.S.C. 1536.
5. Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean
Water Act), as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1344.
6. Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 703-712.
7. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C.
668-668d.
8. Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as
amended, 16 U.S.C. 1456.
9. Section 2 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as
amended, 16 U.S.C. 662.
10. Section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1855.
11. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C.
2901-2912.
12. Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended,
33 U.S.C. 401.
13. The General Bridge Act of 1946, 33 U.S.C. 525(a)-(b), 528,
530, and 533.
14. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management (May 24, 1977)
as implemented by the Department through DOT Order 5650.2.
15. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands (May 24, 1977)
as implemented by the Department through DOT Order 5660.1A.
16. Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major
Federal Actions (Jan. 4, 1979).
17. Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs (July 14, 1982).
18. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (Feb. 11, 1994), as implemented by the Department
through DOT Order 5610.2(a).
19. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments (Nov. 6, 2000).
[FR Doc. 2020-25030 Filed 11-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P