77492 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2011 / Notices 

Data Workshop is a data report which 

compiles and evaluates potential 

datasets and recommends which 

datasets are appropriate for assessment 

analyses. The product of the Assessment 

Process is a stock assessment report 

which describes the fisheries, evaluates 

the status of the stock, estimates 

biological benchmarks, projects future 

population conditions, and recommends 

research and monitoring needs. The 

assessment is independently peer 

reviewed at the Review Workshop. The 

product of the Review Workshop is a 

Summary documenting Panel opinions 

regarding the strengths and weaknesses 

of the stock assessment and input data. 

Participants for SEDAR Workshops are 

appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South 

Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery 

Management Councils and NOAA 

Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, 

HMS Management Division, and 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center. 

Participants include data collectors and 

database managers; stock assessment 

scientists, biologists, and researchers; 

constituency representatives including 

fishermen, environmentalists, and 

NGO’s; International experts; and staff 

of Councils, Commissions, and state and 

federal agencies. 

During the SEDAR 28 pre-data 

workshop webinar participants will 

present summary data, and discuss data 

needs and treatments. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in this agenda may come 

before this group for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 

action during this meeting. Action will 

be restricted to those issues specifically 

listed in this notice and any issues 

arising after publication of this notice 

that require emergency action under 

section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, provided the public has been 

notified of the Council’s intent to take 

final action to address the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

The meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to the 

Council office (see ADDRESSES) at least 

10 business days prior to the meeting. 

Dated: December 8, 2011. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–31886 Filed 12–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XA864 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council) is 

scheduling a public meeting of its Joint 

Whiting Oversight and Advisory Panel, 

in January, 2012, to consider actions 

affecting New England fisheries in the 

exclusive economic zone (EEZ). 

Recommendations from this group will 

be brought to the full Council for formal 

consideration and action, if appropriate. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 10 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Hotel Providence, 139 Mathewson 

Street, Providence, RI 02903: telephone: 

(401) 861–8000; fax: (401) 861–8002. 

Council address: New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 

Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

J. Howard, Executive Director, New 

England Fishery Management Council; 

telephone: (978) 465–0492. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

advisors and committee will review and 

revise Draft Amendment 19 which 

proposes to implement Annual Catch 

Limits and accountability measures. The 

committee may also identify preferred 

alternatives. If approved at the 

January 31–February 2 Council meeting, 

public hearings will be held on the final 

Draft Amendment 19 document. If 

sufficient time exists at this meeting, the 

advisors and committee may also 

discuss limited access issues that will 

be considered in the next amendment. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in this agenda may come 

before this group for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 

action during this meeting. Action will 

be restricted to those issues specifically 

listed in this notice and any issues 

arising after publication of this notice 

that require emergency action under 

section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, provided the public has been 

notified of the Council’s intent to take 

final action to address the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

This meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul 

J. Howard, Executive Director, at (978) 

465–0492, at least 5 days prior to the 

meeting date. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: December 8, 2011. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–31933 Filed 12–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY 

Draft Guidance on Improving the 

Process for Preparing Efficient and 

Timely Environmental Reviews under 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

AGENCY: Council on Environmental 

Quality. 

ACTION: Notice of availability, draft 

guidance on improving the process for 

preparing efficient and timely 

environmental reviews under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

SUMMARY: The Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) is issuing 

its draft guidance on Improving the 

Process for Preparing Efficient and 

Timely Environmental Reviews under 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

for public review and comment. The 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and CEQ Regulations 

implementing NEPA provide numerous 

techniques for preparing efficient and 

timely environmental reviews. CEQ is 

issuing this guidance for Federal 

departments and agencies to emphasize 

and clarify these techniques, consistent 

with a thorough and meaningful 

environmental review and keeping in 

mind the following basic principles: (1) 

NEPA encourages simple, 

straightforward, and concise reviews 

and documentation that are 

proportionate to and effectively convey 

the relevant considerations in a timely 

manner to the public and 

decisionmakers, while comprehensively 

addressing the issues presented; (2) 

NEPA should be integrated into project 

planning rather than be an after-the-fact 

add-on; (3) NEPA reviews should 

coordinate and take appropriate 

advantage of existing documents and 

studies, including through adoption and 

incorporation by reference; (4) Early and 

well-defined scoping can assist in 

focusing environmental reviews on 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2011 / Notices 77493 

1A discussion of NEPA applicability is beyond 

the scope of this guidance. For more information 

see CEQ, The Citizen’s Guide to the National 

Environmental Policy Act, available at 

ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/Citizens_Guide_Dec07.pdf. 

2 ‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,’’ 

Exec. Order 13,563, 76 FR 3821 (January 21, 2011), 

available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011- 

01-21/pdf/2011-1385.pdf. 

3 ‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,’’ 

Exec. Order 13,563, 76 FR 3821 (January 21, 2011), 

available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011- 

01-21/pdf/2011-1385.pdf. 

appropriate issues that would be 

meaningful to a decision on the 

proposed action; (5) Agencies are 

encouraged to develop meaningful and 

expeditious timelines for environmental 

reviews; and (6) Agencies should 

respond to comments in proportion to 

the scope and scale of the 

environmental issues raised. This 

guidance applies to the preparation of 

an Environmental Assessment (EA) or 

an Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) consistent with legal precedent 

and agency NEPA experience and 

practice. This guidance does not change 

or substitute for any law, regulations, or 

any other legally binding requirement. 

Rather, it provides CEQ’s interpretation 

of existing regulations promulgated 

under NEPA. 

DATES: CEQ must receive comments on 

or before January 27, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: The NEPA Draft Guidance 

is available at http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/administration/ 

eop/ceq/initatives/nepa. Comments on 

the NEPA Draft Guidance ‘‘Improving 

the Process for Preparing Efficient and 

Timely Environmental Reviews under 

the National Environmental Policy Act’’ 

should be submitted electronically at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

administration/eop/ceq/initatives/nepa, 

or in writing to The Council on 

Environmental Quality, ATTN: Horst 

Greczmiel, Associate Director for 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Oversight, 722 Jackson Place NW., 

Washington, DC 20503. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: The 

Council on Environmental Quality 

(Attn: Horst Greczmiel, Associate 

Director for National Environmental 

Policy Act Oversight), 722 Jackson Place 

NW., Washington, DC 20503. 

Telephone: (202) 395–5750. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Enacted in 

1970, the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321– 

4370, is a fundamental tool used to 

harmonize our environmental, 

economic, and social aspirations and is 

a cornerstone of our Nation’s efforts to 

protect the environment. NEPA 

recognizes that many Federal activities 

affect the environment and mandates 

that Federal agencies consider the 

environmental impacts of their 

proposed actions before deciding to 

adopt proposals or take action.1 Our 

ongoing review of the CEQ Regulations 

confirms the benefits of integrating 

planning and environmental reviews, 

coordinating multi-agency or multigovernmental reviews and approvals, 

and setting clear schedules for preparing 

EAs and EISs. This guidance promotes 

a sufficient and effective process that is 

tailored to avoid excessive burden. This 

guidance also reflects CEQ’s continuing 

commitment to implement its Plan for 

Retrospective Review of Existing 

Regulations (Plan) in accordance with 

Executive Order 13563.2

The guidance addresses numerous 

individual issues associated with the 

NEPA review process in a manner that 

meets the above-stated goals. The 

individual issues addressed include the 

use of concise NEPA documents focused 

on particular environmental issues, the 

integration of NEPA into preliminary 

parts of the planning process, and a 

more prevalent role of scoping in the 

development of NEPA reviews. The 

guidance also advises agencies to 

collaborate with other government 

bodies—including state, local, or 

Tribal—and coordinate reviews and 

documents with other laws to allow for 

greater efficiency. It further explains the 

adoption of other Federal agency 

reviews, the procedure and ability to 

incorporate information contained in 

other documents into a review, and the 

role of reasonable and proportionate 

responses to comments within the 

NEPA process. Finally, the guidance 

proposes agencies utilize appropriate 

time limits to promote efficiency. Thus, 

this guidance offers concrete tools for 

each step of the NEPA review process, 

providing, in sum, a more thorough, 

efficient, and informed analysis of 

environmental issues. 

This guidance provides CEQ’s 

interpretation of existing regulations 

promulgated under NEPA, and does not 

change agencies’ fundamental 

obligations with regard to NEPA and the 

CEQ Regulations. The draft guidance 

document is provided below and is 

available at the Council on 

Environmental Quality Web site at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

administration/eop/ceq/initatives/nepa. 

For the reasons stated above, CEQ is 

seeking public comment on the 

following draft guidance, entitled 

‘‘Improving the Process for Preparing 

Efficient and Timely Environmental 

Reviews under the National 

Environmental Policy Act.’’ 

The Draft Guidance: The National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

provides for a wide array of tools for the 

efficient and timely conduct of 

environmental reviews. The Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

Regulations implementing NEPA 

contain a number of opportunities for 

achieving this goal. CEQ is issuing this 

guidance for Federal departments and 

agencies to emphasize and clarify those 

opportunities, fully consistent with a 

thorough and meaningful environmental 

review. The guidance also makes it clear 

that many of the provisions of the CEQ 

Regulations which specifically refer to 

an Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) can also apply to an 

Environmental Assessment (EA). This 

guidance applies to the preparation of 

an EA or an EIS consistent with legal 

precedent and agency NEPA experience 

and practice. 

In conducting all environmental 

reviews pursuant to NEPA, agencies 

should use the methods set out in the 

CEQ Regulations mindful of the 

following basic principles: 

• NEPA encourages simple, 

straightforward, and concise reviews 

and documentation that are 

proportionate to and effectively convey 

the relevant considerations in a timely 

manner to the public and 

decisionmakers while comprehensively 

addressing the issues presented; 

• NEPA should be integrated into 

project planning rather than be an afterthe-fact add-on; 

• NEPA reviews should coordinate 

and take appropriate advantage of 

existing documents and studies, 

including through adoption and 

incorporation by reference; 

• Early and well-defined scoping can 

assist in focusing environmental 

reviews to appropriate issues that would 

be meaningful to a decision on the 

proposed action; 

• Agencies are encouraged to develop 

meaningful and expeditious timelines 

for environmental reviews; and 

• Agencies should respond to 

comments in proportion to the scope 

and scale of the environmental issues 

raised. 

This guidance also reflects CEQ’s 

continuing commitment to implement 

its Plan for Retrospective Review of 

Existing Regulations (‘‘Plan’’) in 

accordance with Executive Order 

13563.3 Our ongoing review of the CEQ 

Regulations confirms the benefits of 

integrating environmental reviews, 

coordinating multi-agency or multigovernmental reviews and approvals, 

and setting clear schedules for preparing 

EAs and EISs. This guidance promotes 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
77494 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2011 / Notices 

4This guidance is not a rule or regulation, and the 

recommendations it contains may not apply to a 

particular situation based upon the individual facts 

and circumstances. This guidance does not change 

or substitute for any law, regulations, or any other 

legally binding requirement and is not legally 

enforceable. The use of non-mandatory terminology 

such as ‘‘guidance,’’ ‘‘recommend,’’ ‘‘may,’’ 

‘‘should,’’ and ‘‘can,’’ is intended to describe CEQ 

policies and recommendations. The use of 

mandatory terminology such as ‘‘shall,’’ ‘‘must,’’ 

and ‘‘required’’ is intended to describe controlling 

requirements under NEPA and the CEQ 

Regulations, but this document does not establish 

legally binding requirements in and of itself. 

5 40 CFR parts 1500–1508 (The Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for 

Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA 

(CEQ Regulations), available on http://www.nepa.

gov at ceq.hss.doe.gov/ceq_regulations/

regulations.html). 

6These guidance documents are available online 

at ceq.hss.doe.gov/ceq_regulations/guidance. 

7Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442 U.S. 347, 358 (1979). 

8 40 CFR 1500.1(c). 

9Categorical Exclusions can also be created 

legislatively. 

10 40 CFR 1508.4, 1500.5(k). 11 40 CFR 1508.9. 12 40 CFR 1505.2. 13CEQ Memorandum, ‘‘Establishing, Applying, 

and Revising Categorical Exclusions under the 

National Environmental Policy Act,’’ November 23, 

2010, available at ceq.hss.doe.gov/ceq_regulations/ 

NEPA_CE_Guidance_Nov232010.pdf. 

14 40 CFR 1500.4(p) (recommending use of 

categorical exclusions as a tool to reduce 

paperwork), 1500.5(k) (recommending categorical 

exclusions as a tool to reduce delay). 

15CEQ Memorandum, ‘‘Appropriate Use of 

Mitigation and Monitoring and Clarifying the 

Appropriate Use of Mitigated Findings of No 

Significant Impact,’’ January 14, 2011, available at 

ceq.hss.doe.gov/current_developments/docs/

Mitigation_and_Monitoring_Guidance_

14Jan2011.pdf. 

16CEQ Memorandum, ‘‘Emergencies and the 

National Environmental Policy Act,’’ May 12, 2010, 

available at ceq.hss.doe.gov/ceq_regulations/

Emergencies_and_NEPA_Memorandum_

12May2010.pdf. 

17Presidential Memorandum, ‘‘Speeding 

Infrastructure Development through More Efficient 

and Effective Permitting and Environmental 

Review’’ August 31, 2011, available at http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/31/

presidential-memorandum-speeding-infrastructuredevelopment-through-more. 

18 40 CFR 1500.4(b), 1502.2(b). 

19 40 CFR 1502.2(c); see also 40 CFR 1502.2(a) 

(‘‘Environmental impact statements shall be 

analytic rather than encyclopedic.’’). 

20 40 CFR 1502.2(b). 

21 40 CFR 1500.4(g). 

22 40 CFR 1500.4(j). 

a sufficient and effective process that is 

tailored to avoid excessive burden. This 

guidance provides CEQ’s interpretation 

of existing regulations promulgated 

under NEPA, and does not change 

agencies’ obligations with regard to 

NEPA and the CEQ Regulations.4

Introduction and Steps to Date: CEQ 

was created by NEPA in 1970 and is 

charged with overseeing NEPA 

implementation by Federal agencies. In 

1978, CEQ issued the CEQ Regulations.5

From time to time, CEQ issues guidance 

for the Federal agencies, to clarify the 

requirements and applicability of 

various provisions of NEPA and the 

CEQ Regulations, and to ensure that 

those requirements can be met in a 

timely and effective fashion.6 These 

guidance documents represent CEQ’s 

interpretation of NEPA, which the U.S. 

Supreme Court has said is ‘‘entitled to 

substantial deference.’’ 7

NEPA requires Federal agencies to 

consider the potential environmental 

consequences of their proposed action, 

and any reasonable alternatives, before 

deciding whether and in what form to 

take an action. Environmental reviews 

prepared under NEPA should provide a 

decisionmaker with relevant and timely 

information, and the CEQ Regulations 

make it clear that ‘‘NEPA’s purpose is 

not to generate paperwork—even 

excellent paperwork—but to foster 

excellent action.’’ 8

Complying with NEPA can take three 

forms, that of a Categorical Exclusion, 

an Environmental Assessment, or an 

Environmental Impact Statement: 

• Categorical Exclusion (CE): A CE is 

a category of actions that is expected not 

to have individually or cumulatively 

significant environmental impacts.9

Each agency’s procedures for 

implementing NEPA sets out that 

agency’s CEs, which are established 

after CEQ and public review. A 

proposed action within such a category 

is excluded from further analysis and 

documentation in an Environmental 

Assessment or an Environmental Impact 

Statement.10 A CE can be concluded 

with a determination that a proposed 

action falls within one of the categories 

of actions and there are no extraordinary 

circumstances indicating further 

environmental review is warranted. 

• Environmental Assessment (EA): 

When a CE is not appropriate and the 

agency has not determined whether the 

proposed action will cause significant 

environmental effects, then an EA is 

prepared. If, as a result of the EA, a 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) is appropriate, then the NEPA 

review process is completed with the 

FONSI, including documentation of its 

basis in the EA; otherwise an 

Environmental Impact Statement is 

prepared.11

• Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS): The most intensive level of 

analysis is the Environmental Impact 

Statement, which is typically reserved 

for the analysis of proposed actions that 

are expected to result in significant 

environmental impacts. When an EIS is 

prepared, the NEPA review process is 

concluded when a record of decision 

(ROD) is issued.12

CEQ has been working with agencies 

to modernize and reinvigorate NEPA 

implementation in several ways. CEQ 

issued guidance on the development 

and use of Categorical Exclusions in 

November 2010.13 Properly developed 

and applied, Categorical Exclusions 

provide an efficient tool to complete the 

NEPA environmental review process for 

proposals that normally do not require 

a more resource-intensive EA or EIS. 

The use of Categorical Exclusions can 

reduce paperwork and delay for 

proposed actions that do not raise the 

potential for significant environmental 

effects.14 In January 2011, CEQ provided 

guidance that specifically addressed the 

appropriate use of a FONSI to conclude 

the NEPA review process relying on an 

EA. A mitigated FONSI is appropriate 

when mitigation is used to avoid or 

lessen potentially significant 

environmental effects of proposed 

actions that would otherwise need to be 

analyzed in an EIS.15 In addition, in 

May 2010, CEQ issued guidance on 

ensuring efficient and expeditious 

compliance with NEPA when agencies 

must take exigent action to protect 

human health or safety and valued 

resources in a timeframe that does not 

allow sufficient time for the normal 

NEPA process.16

In August 2011 the President called 

for further steps to enhance the efficient 

and effective permitting and 

environmental review of infrastructure 

development ‘‘through such strategies as 

integrating planning and environmental 

reviews; coordinating multi-agency or 

multi-governmental reviews and 

approvals to run concurrently; setting 

clear schedules for completing steps in 

the environmental review and 

permitting process; and utilizing 

information technologies to inform the 

public about the progress of 

environmental reviews as well as the 

progress of Federal permitting and 

review processes.’’17 This guidance sets 

forth straightforward ways by which the 

CEQ Regulations, properly understood 

and applied, support these strategies. 

1. Concise NEPA Documents: 

Agencies are encouraged to concentrate 

on environmental analysis in their EAs 

and EISs, not to produce an 

encyclopedia of all applicable 

information.18 Environmental analysis 

should focus on significant issues, 

discussing insignificant issues only 

briefly.19 Impacts should be discussed 

in proportion to their significance, and 

if the issues are not deemed significant 

there should be only enough discussion 

to show why more study is not 

warranted.20 Scoping,21 incorporation 

by reference,22 and integration of other 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2011 / Notices 77495 

23 40 CFR 1500.4(k). 

24See generally 40 CFR 1502.2 (EISs should be 

written in plain language so that decisionmakers 

and the public can understand them). 

25 40 CFR 1502.8. 

26 40 CFR 1502.7. 

27 40 CFR 1502.2(c) (length should vary first with 

potential environmental problems and then with 

project size). 

28CEQ Memorandum to Agencies, ‘‘Forty Most 

Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National 

Environmental Policy Act Regulations’’ (Question 

and Answer 36a), March 16, 1981, available at 

http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/40/30–40.HTM

#36. Note that at the time of this memorandum CEQ 

was of the opinion that mitigated Findings of No 

Significant Impact were only appropriate if the 

mitigation measures were imposed by statute or 

regulation, or submitted by an applicant or agency 

as part of the original proposal (Question & Answer 

40). CEQ has since published guidance accepting 

mitigated FONSIs as another means of efficiently 

concluding the NEPA process without producing an 

EIS (‘‘Appropriate Use of Mitigation and Monitoring 

and Clarifying the Appropriate Use of Mitigated 

Findings of No Significant Impact,’’ November 23, 

2010, available at http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/current_

developments/docs/Mitigation_and_Monitoring_

Guidance_14Jan2011.pdf. 

29 40 CFR 1508.9 (The EA is ‘‘a concise public 

document’’); 40 CFR 1502.2(c) (interpreting the 

conciseness requirement for an EIS to mean that 

‘‘length should vary first with potential 

environmental problems and then with project 

size’’). 

30 40 CFR 1508.9(a). 

31 40 CFR 1501.2. 

32 40 CFR 1502.2(g). 

33CEQ Memorandum to Agencies, ‘‘Forty Most 

Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National 

Environmental Policy Act Regulations’’ (Question 

and Answer 13), March 16, 1981 available at 

ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/40/11-19.HTM#13. 

34 40 CFR 1508.23 (A proposal exists as soon as 

an agency has a goal, is developing one or more 

alternatives to achieve that goal, and the effects can 

be meaningfully evaluated). 

35 40 CFR 1502.5. For guidelines specific to 

different agency activities, see 40 CFR 1502.5(a)— 

(d). Misuse of the NEPA process to justify decisions 

already made is counterproductive and can result 

in litigation that could delay and ultimately prevent 

a proposed action from proceeding. 

36 40 CFR 1501.2(d) (non-Federal entities plan 

activities prior to Federal involvement that trigger 

NEPA requirements). 

37 40 CFR 1507.3(b)(1). All agencies are required 

to adopt procedures that supplement the CEQ 

Regulations and provide NEPA implementing 

guidance that both provides agency personnel with 

additional, more specific direction for 

implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA 

and informs the public and State and local officials 

of how the CEQ Regulations will be implemented 

in agency decisionmaking. Agency procedures 

should therefore provide Federal personnel with 

the direction they need to implement NEPA on a 

day-to-day basis. The procedures must also provide 

a clear and uncomplicated picture of what those 

outside the Federal government may do to become 

involved in the environmental review process 

under NEPA. See CEQ Memorandum, ‘‘Agency 

Implementing Procedures Under CEQ’s NEPA 

Regulations,’’ January 19, 1979 available at ceq.hss.

doe.gov/nepa/regs/exec11979.html. Some examples 

of agency NEPA implementing procedures are the 

Department of the Interior Department Manual, 

National Park Service, ‘‘Managing the NEPA 

Process,’’ May 27, 2004, available at http:// 

206.131.241.18/app_dm/act_getfiles.cfm?relnum=

3622 and the Department of the Interior Department 

Manual, Bureau of Land Management, ‘‘Managing 

the NEPA Process,’’ May 8, 2008, available at 

http://elips.doi.gov/app_dm/act_

getfiles.cfm?relnum=3799. 

environmental analyses 23 are additional 

methods that may be used to avoid 

redundant or repetitive discussion of 

issues.24

All NEPA environmental documents, 

not just EISs, should be written in plain 

language,25 follow a clear format, and 

emphasize important portions of the 

impact analysis over mere background 

material. Clarity and consistency ensure 

that the substance of the agency’s 

analysis is understood clearly, avoiding 

unnecessary confusion or risk of 

litigation that could result from an 

ambiguous or opaque analysis. The CEQ 

Regulations indicate that the text of a 

final EIS that addresses the purpose and 

need, alternatives, affected 

environment, and environmental 

consequences should normally be less 

than 150 pages and a final EIS for 

proposals of unusual scope or 

complexity should normally be less 

than 300 pages.26

In light of the growth of 

environmental requirements since the 

publication of the CEQ Regulations, and 

the desire to use the EIS to address, via 

integration, those requirements, it is 

recognized that there will be a range of 

appropriate lengths of EISs. 

Nevertheless, agencies should keep EISs 

as concise as possible (continuing to 

relegate relevant studies and technical 

analyses to appendices) and no longer 

than necessary to comply with NEPA 

and the other legal and regulatory 

requirements being addressed in the 

EIS, and to provide decision makers and 

the public with the information they 

need to assess the significant 

environmental effects of the action 

under review. Length should vary with 

the number, complexity and 

significance of potential environmental 

problems.27

Similarly, the CEQ guidance issued in 

1981 indicated that 10–15 pages is 

generally appropriate for EAs.28 This 

guidance must be balanced with the 

requirement to take a hard look at the 

impacts of the proposed action. As with 

EISs, an EA’s length should vary with 

the scope and scale of potential 

environmental problems, rather than 

just with the scope and scale of the 

proposed action.29 The EA should be no 

more elaborate than necessary to fulfill 

the functions and goals set out in the 

CEQ Regulations: (1) Briefly provide 

sufficient evidence and analysis for 

determining whether to prepare an EIS; 

(2) aid an agency’s compliance with 

NEPA when no EIS is necessary, i.e., the 

EA helps to identify and analyze better 

alternatives and mitigation measures; 

and (3) facilitate preparation of an EIS 

when one is necessary.30

2. Early NEPA Integration in 

Planning: An agency should first 

consider integrating the NEPA process 

into planning when it structures its 

internal process for developing a 

proposed policy, program, management 

plan, or project. Agencies must integrate 

the NEPA process into their planning at 

the earliest possible time to ensure that 

planning and decisions reflect 

environmental values, avoid delays later 

in the process, and anticipate and 

attempt to resolve potential issues.31

NEPA should not become an after-thefact process that justifies decisions that 

have entirely, or in large part, already 

been made.32

The CEQ Regulations emphasize early 

NEPA planning in the context of an EIS. 

The scoping process can be used before 

a notice of intent to seek useful 

information on a proposal from agencies 

and the public.33 For example, agencies 

can commence the process to prepare an 

EIS during the early stages of 

development of a proposal, to ensure 

that the environmental analysis can be 

completed in time for the agency to 

consider the final EIS before making a 

decision on the proposal.34 Further, an 

agency shall prepare an EIS so that it 

can inform the decisionmaking process 

in a timely manner ‘‘and will not be 

used to rationalize or justify decisions 

already made.’’35

If agencies are to prepare efficient 

EAs, then they should adhere to these 

same principles and ensure that the EA 

is prepared in conjunction with the 

development of the proposed action, 

and in time to inform the public and the 

decisionmaker. Agencies should review 

their NEPA implementing procedures as 

well as their NEPA practices to ensure 

that NEPA is integrated into overall 

project management to the fullest extent 

possible whether the agencies are 

preparing an EA or an EIS. 

The CEQ Regulations call upon 

agencies to provide for situations where 

the initial planning process is in the 

hands of an applicant or other nonFederal entity.36 The Regulations 

require Federal agencies to address 

these situations in their NEPA 

implementing procedures.37

Consequently, agencies that have a 

reasonably foreseeable role in actions 

that are initially developed by private 

applicants or other non-Federal entities 

must plan for those situations. The 

NEPA implementing procedures for 

such agencies must provide access to 

designated staff or the policies that can 

inform applicants and other non-Federal 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
77496 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2011 / Notices 

38 40 CFR 1501.2(d)(1). 

39 40 CFR 1501.2(d)(2). Agencies should be 

cognizant of their obligations under current 

Executive Orders 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, Nov 

6, 2000) and 112898 (Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, Feb 11, 1994), available 

at ceq.hss.doe.gov/laws_and_executive_orders/ 

executive_orders.html. 

40 40 CFR 1501.2(d)(3). 

41 40 CFR 1501.7 (‘‘There shall be an early and 

open process for determining the scope of issues to 

be addressed and for identifying the significant 

issues related to a proposed action. This process 

shall be termed scoping.’’) 

42 40 CFR 1500.4(b), (g) and 1501.7. 

43 40 CFR 1501.6, 1508.5 (responsibilities of the 

lead agency include the requirement to request the 

participation of any other Federal agency which has 

jurisdiction by law). Previous guidance on engaging 

other agencies with jurisdiction over permits and 

other approvals required for a proposal to proceed 

include: CEQ Memorandum for Heads of Federal 

Agencies, ‘‘Cooperating Agencies in Implementing 

the Procedural Requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act’’ (January 30, 2002), 

available at ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/cooperating/ 

cooperatingagenciesmemorandum.html; and CEQ 

Memorandum to Agencies, ‘‘Forty Most Asked 

Questions Concerning CEQ’s National 

Environmental Policy Act Regulations’’ (Question 

and Answer 14), March 16, 1981 available at 

ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/40/11-19.HTM#14. 

44 40 CFR 1501.7(a)(3). 45 40 CFR 1500.4(g). 46 40 CFR 1501.4(b) (agencies are to involve the 

public in the preparation of EAs; the manner in 

which they do so is left to the agency). 

47 40 CFR 1501.7(a)(1), 1501.4(b), 1506.6. 

Establishing cooperating agency status is discussed 

in greater detail in the CEQ Memorandum for Heads 

of Federal Agencies, ‘‘Cooperating Agencies in 

Implementing the Procedural Requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act,’’ 30 January 

2002 available at ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ 

cooperating/ 

cooperatingagenciesmemorandum.html. 

48 In cases where a Federal agency uses scoping 

for an EA and subsequently determines it is 

necessary to conduct an EIS, the agency should 

refer to the guidance provided in the CEQ 

Memorandum to Agencies, ‘‘Forty Most Asked 

Questions Concerning CEQ’s National 

Environmental Policy Act Regulations’’ (Question 

and Answer 13), March 16, 1981, available at 

http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/40/30-40.HTM#13 

(scoping that is done before the assessment, and in 

aid of its preparation, cannot substitute for the 

normal scoping process after publication of the 

NOI, unless the earlier public notice stated clearly 

that this possibility was under consideration, and 

the NOI expressly provides that written comments 

on the scope of alternatives and impacts will still 

be considered). 

49 40 CFR 1501.6 and 1508.5. CEQ has published 

guidance encouraging lead agencies to establish a 

formal cooperating agency relationship with other 

Federal agencies as well as State, Tribal, and local 

governmental entities. CEQ memorandum, 

‘‘Cooperating Agencies in Implementing the 

Procedural Requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act,’’ January 30, 2002, 

available at ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/cooperating/ 

cooperatingagenciesmemorandum.html. 

50 40 CFR 1501.7(a)(4) (a lead agency may allocate 

responsibility for EIS preparation and analysis 

among cooperating agencies during scoping). 

51 40 CFR 1501.7(a)(7). 

52 40 CFR 1501.7(b)(1)–(2), 1501.8. 

53 40 CFR 1506.2(b). 

54 40 CFR 1506.2(b); see also 40 CFR 1500.4(n) 

(encouraging Federal agencies to eliminate 

duplication with State and local procedures, by 

providing for joint preparation). 

entities of studies or other information 

foreseeably required for later Federal 

action.38

Advanced planning for initially nonFederal actions must also ensure that 

the Federal agency is able to initiate 

early consultation with appropriate 

Tribes, States, local agencies, and 

interested private persons and 

organizations when Federal 

involvement is reasonably foreseeable.39

For actions initiated at the request of a 

non-Federal entity, Federal agencies 

should begin the NEPA process for 

preparing their EA or EIS as early as 

possible but no later than upon receipt 

of a complete application.40 Federal 

agencies should, whenever possible, 

guide applicants to gather and develop 

the appropriate level of information and 

analyses in advance of submitting an 

application or other request for federal 

agency action. For example, several 

agencies require an applicant to prepare 

and submit an environmental report to 

help prepare the NEPA analyses and 

documentation and facilitate the lead 

agency’s independent environmental 

review of the proposal. 

3. Scoping: To effectuate integration, 

avoid duplication, and focus the NEPA 

review, the CEQ Regulations provide for 

‘‘scoping.’’ 41 In scoping, the lead agency 

determines the issues that its EA or EIS 

will address and identifies the 

significant issues related to the 

proposed action that will be considered 

in the analysis.42 To increase efficiency, 

the lead agency can solicit cooperation 

at the earliest possible time from other 

agencies that have jurisdiction by law or 

special expertise on any environmental 

issue that should be considered. 

Cooperating agencies with jurisdiction 

by law or special expertise can work 

with the lead agency to ensure that, 

whenever possible, one NEPA review 

process informs all the decisions needed 

to determine whether and, if so, how a 

proposed action will proceed.43

The CEQ Regulations explicitly 

address the role of scoping in 

preparation of an EIS. Agencies can also 

choose to take advantage of scoping 

when preparing an EA that deals with 

uncertainty or controversy regarding 

potential conflicts over the use of 

resources or the environmental effects of 

the proposed action. For example, a lead 

agency preparing such an EA may use 

scoping to identify and eliminate from 

detailed study the issues that are not 

significant or that have been covered by 

prior environmental review.44 The 

scoping process provides a transparent 

way to identify significant 

environmental issues and to 

deemphasize insignificant issues,45

thereby focusing the analysis on the 

most pertinent issues and impacts.46

The scoping process can be 

particularly helpful in identifying 

opportunities to coordinate reviews and 

related surveys and studies required by 

other laws or by executive orders. 

Scoping should also be used to begin 

inter- and intra-governmental 

coordination if it is not already ongoing. 

To accomplish these goals, the lead 

agency preparing an EA or an EIS can 

choose to invite the participation of 

affected Federal, State, and local 

agencies, any affected Indian tribe, the 

proponent of the action, and ‘‘other 

interested persons (including those who 

might not be in accord with the action 

on environmental grounds).’’ 47 In 

addition to facilitating coordination and 

the development of required 

environmental reviews, scoping will 

help to identify the universe of matters 

that need to be addressed with 

particular care and flag issues for 

thorough consideration, thereby 

defusing potential conflict that, absent 

early attention, could arise later and 

potentially delay the timely completion 

of the relevant NEPA review.48

In sum, the scoping process provides 

an early opportunity to plan 

collaboration with other governments,49

assign responsibilities,50 and develop 

the planning and decisionmaking 

schedule.51 It also affords lead agencies 

the option of setting page limits for 

environmental documents and setting 

time limits for the steps in the NEPA 

process.52 Agencies may also choose to 

use scoping whenever any of these 

techniques can provide for the more 

effective and efficient preparation of an 

EA. 

4. Inter-Governmental Coordination 

(State, Local, or Tribal Environmental 

Reviews): CEQ encourages Federal 

agencies to collaborate with Tribal, 

State, and local governments to the 

fullest extent possible to reduce 

duplication, unless the agencies are 

specifically barred from doing so by 

some other law.53 The CEQ Regulations 

explicitly provide for agencies to 

conduct joint planning processes, joint 

environmental research and studies, 

joint public hearings (except where 

otherwise provided by statute), and joint 

environmental assessments.54 Federal 

agencies should explore every 

reasonable opportunity to integrate the 

requirements of NEPA with the external 

planning and environmental reviews 

required on the Federal as well as the 

State, Tribal, and local levels of 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2011 / Notices 77497 

55 40 CFR 1500.2(c). This point is reiterated 

throughout the CEQ Regulations. 

56 40 CFR 1506.2(c). 

57 40 CFR 1506.2(d). 

58 40 CFR 1506.2(d). 

59 40 CFR 1502.25(a). Examples provided in the 

Regulation are: the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.); the National Historic 

Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.); and the 

Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

60 40 CFR 1506.4; see also 40 CFR 1500.4(k), (n). 

61 40 CFR 1506.3. 

62 40 CFR 1501.4(b) and 1506.6 (Agencies are to 

involve the public in the preparation of EAs, the 

manner in which they do so is left to the agency). 

63 40 CFR 1506.3(c). 

64 40 CFR 1502.21. 

65 40 CFR 1502.21. 

66 40 CFR 1502.21 (material based on proprietary 

data which is itself not available for review and 

comment cannot be incorporated by reference). 

67 40 CFR 1503.4(c); see also 40 CFR 1500.4(m). 

68 40 CFR 1503.4(c). 

69 40 CFR 1503.4(c). 

70 40 CFR 1500.5(e). 

71 40 CFR 1506.10 (setting 90 day time period 

between EPA publication of the notice of 

availability of a draft EIS and the Record of 

Decision, 30 day time period between EPA 

publication of the notice of availability of a final 

Continued 

government so that those reviews can 

run concurrently rather than 

consecutively.55

Where State law or local ordinances 

contain environmental impact analysis 

and documentation requirements in 

addition to, but not in conflict with, 

those in NEPA, the CEQ Regulations 

provide authority for producing joint 

EISs.56 In such cases, Federal agencies 

shall cooperate in fulfilling the State, 

Tribal, and local environmental impact 

analysis and documentation 

requirements as well as the 

requirements of other environmental 

laws so that one document will suffice 

for complying with as many applicable 

laws as practicable. Federal agencies 

should seek efficiencies and avoid delay 

by attempting to meet applicable nonFederal NEPA-like requirements in 

conjunction with either an EA or an EIS 

wherever possible. 

The CEQ Regulations also require that 

a Federal agency preparing an EIS better 

integrate the EIS into non-Federal 

planning processes by discussing and 

explaining any inconsistency of a 

proposed Federal action with any 

approved State or local plan and laws.57

When preparing an EA or EIS, if an 

inconsistency with any approved Tribal, 

State, or local plan or laws exists, the 

Federal agency should describe the 

extent to which it will reconcile its 

proposed action with the non-Federal 

plan or law.58

5. Coordinating Reviews and 

Documents Under Other Applicable 

Laws: Agencies must integrate, to the 

fullest extent possible, their draft EIS 

with environmental impact analyses 

and related surveys and studies required 

by other laws or by executive order.59

Coordinated and concurrent 

environmental reviews are appropriate 

whenever other analyses, surveys, and 

studies will consider the same issues 

and information as a NEPA analysis. 

Such coordination should be considered 

when preparing an EA as well as when 

preparing an EIS. 

The goal should be to conduct 

concurrent rather than sequential 

processes whenever appropriate. In 

situations where one aspect of a project 

is within the particular expertise or 

jurisdiction of another agency an agency 

should consider whether adoption or 

incorporation by reference of materials 

prepared by the other agency would be 

more efficient. 

A coordinated or concurrent process 

may provide a better basis for informed 

decision making, or at least achieve the 

same result as separate or consecutive 

processes while avoiding unnecessary 

duplication of effort. In addition to 

integrating the reviews and analyses, the 

CEQ Regulations also state that any 

environmental document that complies 

with NEPA may be combined with any 

other agency document to reduce 

duplication and paperwork.60

6. Adoption: The adoption of one 

Federal agency’s EIS, or a portion of that 

EIS, by another Federal agency is an 

efficiency that the CEQ Regulations 

provide.61 An agency preparing an EA 

should similarly consider adopting 

another agency’s EA when the EA or a 

portion thereof addresses the proposed 

action and meets the standards for an 

adequate EA under NEPA, the CEQ’s 

Regulations, and the adopting agency’s 

NEPA implementing procedures. 

The CEQ Regulations require agencies 

to involve agencies, applicants and the 

public; however, they do not require 

agencies to prepare a draft EA and 

circulate a draft or final EA for public 

review or comment.62 If an agency’s 

implementing NEPA procedures 

establish requirements for public review 

and comment when preparing an EA, 

however, then the adopting agency must 

provide a similar process when it adopts 

the preparing agency’s EA. 

In those cases where the adopting 

agency is also a cooperating agency in 

the preparation of an EIS, it may adopt 

the lead agency’s EIS without additional 

public involvement when, after an 

independent review, it concludes that 

the lead agency has adequately 

addressed the adopting agency’s 

comments and suggestions.63 Similarly, 

when the adopting agency was a 

cooperating agency in the preparation of 

an EA, it may adopt the EA without 

additional public involvement. 

7. Incorporation by Reference: 

Incorporation by reference is another 

method that provides efficiency and 

timesaving when preparing either an EA 

or an EIS. The CEQ Regulations direct 

agencies to incorporate material into an 

EIS by reference to reduce the size of the 

EIS and avoid duplicative effort.64 An 

agency must cite the incorporated 

material in an EIS and briefly describe 

the content.65 An agency may not 

incorporate any material by reference in 

an EIS unless the material is reasonably 

available for inspection by potentially 

interested persons within the time 

allowed for comment.66 Agencies can, 

consistent with NEPA and the CEQ 

Regulations, incorporate documents into 

an EA by reference provided the content 

has been briefly described and the 

materials are reasonably available for 

review by interested parties. 

8. Expediting Responses to 

Comments: Agencies should provide a 

reasonable and proportionate response 

to comments on a draft EIS by focusing 

on the environmental issues and 

information conveyed by the comments. 

When preparing a final EIS, if the draft 

EIS complies with NEPA, CEQ 

regulations, and agency implementing 

procedures, the agency may use the 

draft EIS as the final EIS under certain 

conditions. If changes in response to 

comments are minor and are limited to 

factual corrections and/or explanations 

of why the comments do not warrant 

further agency response, agencies may 

write them on errata sheets and attach 

them to the statement instead of 

rewriting the draft statement.67 In such 

cases, the agency must circulate only 

the comments, the responses and the 

changes, and not the final statement.68

Only the comments, responses, and 

changes need be filed with the draft 

document and a new cover sheet to 

make the EIS final, under those 

circumstances.69 Similarly, if an agency 

issues an EA for comment and the 

changes in response to comments are 

minor and limited to factual corrections 

and/or explanations of why the 

comments do not warrant further agency 

response, then the agency may prepare 

a similar cover and errata sheet and use 

its draft EA as the final EA. 

9. Clear Time Lines for NEPA 

Reviews: Establishing appropriate time 

limits promotes the efficiency of the 

NEPA process.70 The CEQ Regulations 

do not prescribe universal time limits 

for the entire NEPA process; instead 

they set certain minimum time limits for 

the various portions of the NEPA 

process.71 The CEQ Regulations do 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
77498 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2011 / Notices 

EIS and the Record of Decision, and 45 days for 

comment on a draft EIS). 

72 40 CFR 1501.8 (CEQ encourages Federal 

agencies to set time limits consistent with the time 

intervals required by § 1506.10). 

73 40 CFR 1501.8(a) and (c). 

encourage Federal agencies to set 

appropriate time limits for individual 

actions, however, and provide a list of 

factors to consider in establishing 

timelines.72 Those factors include: the 

potential for environmental harm; the 

size of the proposed action; other time 

limits imposed on the action by other 

laws, regulations, or executive orders; 

and the degree of public need for the 

proposed action and the consequences 

of delay. The CEQ Regulations refer to 

the EIS process when describing the 

‘‘constituent parts of the NEPA process’’ 

to which time limits may apply, require 

agencies to set time limits at the request 

of an applicant, and allow agencies to 

set time limits at the request of other 

interested parties.73 It is entirely 

consistent with the purposes and goals 

of NEPA and with the CEQ Regulations 

for agencies to also determine 

appropriate time limits for the EA 

process when requested by applicants, 

Tribes, States, local agencies, or 

members of the public. 

Conclusion: This guidance describes 

methods provided in the CEQ 

regulations that agencies preparing an 

EA or an EIS may employ to prepare 

concise and timely NEPA reviews. 

Using methods such as integrating 

planning and environmental reviews 

and permitting, coordinating multiagency or multi-governmental reviews 

and approvals, and setting schedules for 

completing the environmental review 

will assist agencies in preparing 

efficient and timely EAs and EISs 

consistent with legal precedent and 

agency NEPA experience and practice. 

Nancy H. Sutley, 

Chair. 

[FR Doc. 2011–31983 Filed 12–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3225–F2–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Air Force 

[Docket ID: USAF–2011–0028] 

Privacy Act of 1974; System of 

Records 

AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, 

Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Notice to alter a system of 

records. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the Air 

Force proposes to alter a system of 

records to its inventory of record 

systems subject to the Privacy Act of 

1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. 

DATES: The proposed action will be 

effective on January 12, 2012 unless 

comments are received that would 

result in a contrary determination. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and title, 

by any of the following methods: 

Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Federal Docket Management 

System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 

East Tower, 2nd Floor, Suite 02G09, 

Alexandria, VA 22350–3100. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this Federal Register 

document. The general policy for 

comments and other submissions from 

members of the public is to make these 

submissions available for public 

viewing on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov as they are 

received without change, including any 

personal identifiers or contact 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Charles J. Shedrick, Department of the 

Air Force Privacy Office, Air Force 

Privacy Act Office, Office of Warfighting 

Integration and Chief Information 

officer, ATTN: SAF/CIO A6, 1800 Air 

Force Pentagon, Washington DC 20330– 

1800, or by phone at (202) 404–6575. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Department of the Air Force’s notices 

for systems of records subject to the 

Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as 

amended, have been published in the 

Federal Register and are available from 

the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

The proposed systems reports, as 

required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the 

Privacy Act, were submitted on 

December 6, 2011 to the House 

Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform, the Senate 

Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, and the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I 

to OMB Circular No. A–130, ‘‘Federal 

Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining 

Records About Individuals,’’ dated 

February 8, 1996, (February 20, 1996, 61 

FR 6427). 

Dated: December 7, 2011. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

F044 AF SG E 

SYSTEM NAME: 

Medical Record System (June 18, 

2010, 75 FR 34709). 

CHANGES: 

Change System ID to read ‘‘F044 F SG 

E.’’ 

SYSTEM NAME: 

Delete entry and replace with 

‘‘Electronic Medical Records System.’’ 

SYSTEM LOCATION: 

Delete entry and replace with 

‘‘Headquarters, United States Air Force, 

Surgeon General (HQ USAF/SG), Air 

Force Medical Service Chief Information 

Officer’s Office (AFMS CIO’s office), 

5201 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1501, Falls 

Church, VA 22041–3214.’’ 

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE

SYSTEM: 

Delete entry and replace with 

‘‘Uniformed services medical 

beneficiaries enrolled in the Defense 

Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System 

(DEERS) who receive or have received 

medical care at one or more of DoD’s 

medical treatment facilities (MTFs), 

Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities 

(USTFs), or care provided under 

TRICARE programs. Uniformed services 

medical beneficiaries who receive or 

have received care at one or more dental 

treatment facilities or other system 

locations including medical aid stations, 

Educational and Developmental 

Intervention Services clinics and 

Service Medical Commands. Uniformed 

service members serving in a deployed 

status and those who receive or received 

care through the Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA).’’ 

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: 

Delete entry and replace with ‘‘Full 

name, Social Security Number (SSN) or 

Military Service Number, date treatment 

was provided, name of facility 

providing treatment, inpatient, 

outpatient, and ambulatory procedure 

visit (APV) records of care received in 

Air Force medical facilities. 

Documentation includes: Patient’s 

medical history, physical examination, 

treatment received; supporting 

documentation, such as laboratory and 

x-ray reports, cover sheets and 

summaries of hospitalization, diagnoses, 

procedures or surgery performed, 

administrative forms which concern 

medical conditions, such as Line of 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES