[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 19, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54816-54820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7756]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY


The National Environmental Policy Act--Guidance on Categorical 
Exclusions

AGENCY: Council on Environmental Quality.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) used an interagency 
work group to develop guidance to Federal agencies for establishing and 
for using categorical exclusions in meeting their responsibilities 
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). CEQ invites 
comments on the proposed guidance before issuing the final guidance to 
the heads of the Federal agencies. The proposed guidance, 
``Establishing, Revising, and Using Categorical Exclusions under the 
National Environmental Policy Act'', is reprinted below and is also 
available at http://www.NEPA.gov in the Current Developments section.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted on or before October 27, 
2006.

ADDRESSES: Electronic or facsimile comments on the proposed guidance 
are preferred because Federal offices experience intermittent mail 
delays from security screening. Electronic comments can be sent to NEPA 
Modernization (CE) at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#345c534651574e595d5158745751451a515b441a535b42"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e28a85908781988f8b878ea2818793cc878d92cc858d94">[email protected]</span></a>. Written comments may be 
faxed to NEPA Modernization (CE) at (202) 456-0753. Written comments 
may also be submitted to NEPA Modernization (CE), Attn: Associate 
Director for NEPA Oversight, 722 Jackson Place NW., Washington DC 
20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Horst Greczmiel, 202-395-5750.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 
established a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Task Force and 
is now implementing recommendations designed to modernize the 
implementation of NEPA and make the NEPA process more effective and 
efficient. Additional information is available on the task force Web 
site at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/ntf.
    The proposed guidance, ``Establishing, Revising, and Using 
Categorical Exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act,'' 
was developed to assist agencies with developing and using categorical 
exclusions for actions that do not have significant effects on the 
human environment and eliminate the need for unnecessary paperwork and 
effort under NEPA for categories of actions that normally do not 
warrant preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) or 
environmental assessment (EA). Developing and using appropriate 
categorical exclusions promotes the cost-effective use of agency NEPA 
related resources. CEQ requests public input and comments on the 
following proposed guidance:
    Establishing, Revising, and Using Categorical Exclusions under the 
National Environmental Policy Act.

I. Introduction

    The following guidance is provided to assist Federal agencies in 
improving and

[[Page 54817]]

modernizing their administration of categorical exclusions under NEPA. 
The guidance recommends procedures and approaches for establishing and 
revising categorical exclusions; involving the public; documenting 
development, revision, and use of categorical exclusions; and 
periodically reviewing categorical exclusions.
    The CEQ regulations define categorical exclusion in 40 CFR 1508.4:

    <bullet> Categorical exclusion'' means a category of actions 
which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect 
on the human environment and which have been found to have no such 
effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency in implementation 
of these regulations (Sec.  1507.3) and for which, therefore, 
neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact 
statement is required. * * * Any procedures under this section shall 
provide for extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded 
action may have a significant environmental effect.

    CEQ established the CEQ NEPA Task Force to review NEPA 
implementation and identify opportunities to improve and modernize the 
NEPA process. To promote consistent categorical exclusion development 
and use, the CEQ NEPA Task Force recommended that CEQ issue clarifying 
guidance on categorical exclusions.\1\ This guidance is based on 
existing CEQ regulations and guidance, legal precedent, and agency NEPA 
experience. In keeping with CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1507.1, the 
intent of this guidance is to allow agencies flexibility in 
implementing the procedures for categorical exclusions that are adapted 
to the requirements of other applicable laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Council on Environmental Quality, ``The NEPA Task Force 
Report to the Council on Environmental Quality--Modernizing NEPA 
Implementation'', (Sept. 2003), available at http://www.ceq.eh.doe.gov/ntf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. The Purpose of Establishing New Categorical Exclusions \2\

    The purpose of a categorical exclusion is to eliminate the need for 
unnecessary paperwork and effort under NEPA for categories of actions 
that normally do not warrant preparation of an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) or environmental assessment (EA).\3\ Developing 
appropriate categorical exclusions promotes the cost-effective use of 
agency NEPA related resources. Federal agency personnel should develop 
a categorical exclusion when they identify a class of actions without 
significant environmental impacts. A Federal agency should also 
consider developing categorical exclusions to respond to changes in 
mission or responsibilities as the agency gains experience with the new 
activities and their environmental consequences.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This guidance applies to establishing new or revised 
categorical exclusions, and uses the term ``new'' to include 
revisions of categorical exclusions that are more than 
administrative (e.g., revise to update outdated office or agency 
title) or editorial (e.g., correct spelling or typographical 
errors).
    \3\ 40 CFR 1500.4(p) and 1500.5(k).
    \4\ When legislative or administrative restructuring creates a 
new agency or realigns an existing agency, the agency may need to 
develop new NEPA procedures that include categorical exclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Revision of an existing categorical exclusion can promote 
efficiency by clarifying the actions that are covered by an existing 
categorical exclusion. For example, a Federal agency may find that an 
existing categorical exclusion is not being used because the category 
of actions is too narrowly defined. In such cases, the agency should 
consider expanding the category of actions. Conversely, if an agency 
finds that an existing categorical exclusion includes actions that are 
regularly found to require additional NEPA analysis, then the agency 
should revise the categorical exclusion to limit the category of 
actions included.

III. Substantiating a New Categorical Exclusion

    A key issue confronting Federal agencies is how to evaluate whether 
a proposed categorical exclusion is appropriate and how to support the 
determination that it describes a category of actions that do not 
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human 
environment.\5\ The information that supports establishing a 
categorical exclusion should demonstrate how the agency determined that 
the proposed categorical exclusion does not typically result in 
significant environmental effects and set forth the methodology and any 
criteria used to define the proposed category of actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 40 CFR 1508.7, 1508.8, and 1508.27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. The Elements of a Categorical Exclusion

    The text of a proposed categorical exclusion should clearly define 
the category of actions as well as any physical or environmental 
factors that would constrain its use. An example of a physical 
constraint is a limit on the extent of the action (e.g., miles). 
Examples of environmental constraints are limits on where and under 
what conditions the categorical exclusion may be used (e.g., particular 
seasons in habitat areas). Federal agencies should also consider the 
opportunity to develop categorical exclusions that are limited in their 
application to regions or areas of the country where it can demonstrate 
that the actions do not present significant impacts based on the 
similarity of environmental settings.
    When developing a categorical exclusion, the Federal agency must 
make certain that the proposed category clearly describes all the 
actions that should be included. Categorical exclusions should not be 
established in a disaggregated or segmented format simply to circumvent 
the evaluation of environmental effects required for NEPA compliance 
through an EA or EIS.
    A Federal agency's NEPA procedures for categorical exclusions must 
provide for extraordinary circumstances.\6\ Extraordinary circumstances 
function to identify the atypical situation or environmental setting 
where an otherwise excluded action merits further analysis and 
documentation in an EA or an EIS. For many agencies, their existing 
extraordinary circumstances provisions (often presented as a list) will 
suffice. However, an agency may develop extraordinary circumstances 
that specifically relate to the new categorical exclusion and propose 
them in conjunction with the categorical exclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 40 CFR 1508.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Gathering Information To Substantiate a Categorical Exclusion

    CEQ guidance generally addresses establishing categorical 
exclusions.

    Section 1507 of the CEQ regulations directs Federal agencies 
when establishing implementing procedures to identify those actions 
which experience has indicated will not have a significant 
environmental effect and to categorically exclude them * * * \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Council on Environmental Quality, ``Guidance Regarding NEPA 
Regulations,'' 48 FR 34263 (July 28, 1983), available at http://www.nepa.gov/nepa/regs/1983/1983guid.htm.

    Various sources of information relevant to the action and its 
environmental effects may be used to substantiate a categorical 
exclusion including but not limited to evaluation of implemented 
actions, impact demonstration projects, information from professional 
staff and expert opinion or scientific analyses, and others' 
experiences (benchmarking).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Agencies should be mindful of their obligations under the 
Information Quality Act to ensure the quality, objectivity, utility, 
and integrity of the information they use or disseminate as the 
basis of an agency decision to establish a new categorical 
exclusion. Section 515, Public Law 106-554; Office of Management and 
Budget Information Quality Guidelines, 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), 
available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/infopoltech.html. 
Additional laws and regulations establish obligations that apply or 
may apply to the processes of establishing and applying categorical 
exclusions, such as the Federal Records Act; these are beyond the 
scope of this guidance.

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

[[Page 54818]]

    Sources with substantial similarities to the proposed categorical 
exclusion will prove to be the most useful. Substantiating information 
should account for similarities and differences relative to the 
proposed categorical exclusion in terms of the scope of actions, 
methods of implementation, and environmental settings. The Federal 
agency should maintain an administrative record that includes all 
sources of information used and related findings. The agency should 
also summarize that information and the related findings in the Federal 
Register publication of the proposed categorical exclusion.
1. Evaluating an Agency's Implemented Actions
    Evaluation of implemented actions, as used in this guidance, refers 
to monitoring and evaluating the environmental effects of the Federal 
agency's completed or ongoing actions. The benefit of evaluating an 
agency's own actions is that the implementation and operating 
procedures are in place and well known. The evaluation should include 
data collected before the proposed categorical exclusion is finalized. 
Collaboratively monitoring and evaluating implemented actions with non-
federal entities can provide useful information for substantiating a 
categorical exclusion.
    For a category of actions that the agency analyzed in EAs that 
supported Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSIs), evaluations can 
validate the predicted environmental effects, and provide strong 
support for a proposed categorical exclusion. Evaluation of implemented 
actions analyzed in an EIS may also be used to substantiate a 
categorical exclusion for activities. An EIS can be used when the 
action is minor, subordinate to and not dependent upon other actions. 
An EIS can also be used when it analyzes both a large management action 
and a smaller, independent action.
    Finally, Federal agencies with an Environmental Management System 
(EMS) may be able to use data generated through their EMS.\9\ An EMS 
may provide a record of environmental performance and help identify 
actions that should be included in a proposed categorical exclusion or 
proposed extraordinary circumstances.
2. Impact Demonstration Projects
    As used in this guidance, the term impact demonstration project 
describes a project that includes the NEPA analysis of a proposed 
action (for which the agency does not have extensive experience), 
implementation of the action, and evaluation of the environmental 
effects of the action. The NEPA documentation prepared for the 
demonstration project should explain that one of the purposes of the 
NEPA process is to generate analyses for substantiating a proposed 
categorical exclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ An EMS provides a systematic framework for a Federal agency 
to monitor and continually improve its environmental performance 
through audits, evaluation of legal and other requirements, and 
management reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In designing an impact demonstration project it is particularly 
important that the action being evaluated accurately reflect the 
category of actions described in the proposed categorical exclusion and 
that the action is implemented under similar operational and 
environmental conditions as in the proposed categorical exclusion. 
Several projects may be useful when environmental conditions vary in 
different regions where the categorical exclusion would be used.
3. Professional Staff and Expert Opinions, and Scientific Analyses
    A Federal agency may use their professional staff and outside 
expert opinions as a valid source of information to substantiate a 
categorical exclusion. Those individuals should have special knowledge, 
training, experience, or understanding relevant to implementation of 
the actions described in the proposed categorical exclusion and the 
environmental effects of the action. The agency record should include 
such individuals' credentials (e.g., education, training, 
certifications, years of related experience).
    The use of scientific analyses need not be limited to peer-reviewed 
findings and may also include professional opinions, reports, and 
research findings. However, because the reliability of scientific 
information varies according to its source and the rigor with which it 
was developed, the Federal agency remains responsible for determining 
whether the information in question reflects accepted knowledge or 
findings and addresses the effects of the actions included in the 
proposed categorical exclusion.
4. Benchmarking Public and Private Entities' Experiences
    As used in this guidance, the term benchmarking means using 
information and records from other private and public entities' 
experience with similar actions. When evaluating whether it is 
appropriate to rely on others' experience, it will be necessary to 
demonstrate that the categorically excluded actions and their 
environmental effects are comparable to the category of actions in the 
proposed categorical exclusion. Benchmarking should consider the 
similarities and differences in: (1) Methods of implementing the 
actions; (2) characteristics of the actions; (3) frequency of the 
actions; (4) applicable standard operating procedures or implementing 
guidance; and (5) environmental settings in which the actions take 
place. Although an agency cannot simply use another agency's 
categorical exclusion for a proposed action, a Federal agency may find 
it useful to consider another Federal agency's experience and 
supporting information involving categorically excluded actions.

C. Refining a Proposed New Categorical Exclusion

    If a proposed categorical exclusion is found to have a potentially 
significant effect, the Federal agency should either drop consideration 
of the categorical exclusion or consider refining it. Examples include: 
limiting or removing actions included in the proposed categorical 
exclusion; adding text that places additional constraints on the use of 
the categorical exclusion; or refining the applicable extraordinary 
circumstances.
    Federal agencies may also consider limiting the geographic 
applicability of the categorical exclusion. For example, if the 
category of actions is typically without significant effects in the 
northeastern United States or in a particular set of watersheds, it may 
be appropriate to establish a regional or spatially-based categorical 
exclusion.
    Furthermore, when developing a new categorical exclusion, it may be 
helpful or necessary to identify extraordinary circumstances 
specifically tailored for that categorical exclusion. Such tailoring 
would facilitate identifying atypical circumstances and further ensure 
that the use of the categorical exclusion would typically not result in 
individual or cumulative significant environmental effects.

IV. Procedures for Establishing a New Categorical Exclusion

    The process of establishing or revising an agency's NEPA 
procedures, as distinguished from explanatory guidance, is found in 40 
CFR 1507.3(a).

    Each agency shall consult with the Council while developing its 
procedures and before publishing them in the Federal Register for 
comment. Agencies with similar procedures should consult with each 
other and the

[[Page 54819]]

Council to coordinate their procedures, especially for programs 
requesting similar information from applicants. The procedures shall 
be adopted only after an opportunity for public review and after 
review by the Council for conformity with the Act and these 
regulations [40 CFR parts 1500--1508]. The Council shall complete 
its review within 30 days. Once in effect they shall be filed with 
the Council and made readily available to the public. Agencies are 
encouraged to publish explanatory guidance for these regulations and 
their own procedures. Agencies shall continue to review their 
policies and procedures and in consultation with the Council to 
revise them as necessary to ensure full compliance with the purposes 
and provisions of the Act.

    Federal agencies are encouraged to involve CEQ early in the process 
to take advantage of CEQ expertise and assist in coordinating with 
other agencies to make the process as efficient as possible. Federal 
agencies should consult with CEQ on both the proposed categorical 
exclusion and the final categorical exclusion.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 40 CFR 1507.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any proposed categorical exclusion must be made available for 
public review and comment. At a minimum, the CEQ regulations require 
Federal agencies to publish the proposed categorical exclusion in the 
Federal Register and provide a period during which the public may 
submit comments on the proposal.\11\ Federal agencies are encouraged to 
maintain a file of the comments and responses. To maximize the value of 
input from interested parties and assist them in focusing their 
comments, the agency should make information supporting the categorical 
exclusion available to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 40 CFR 1507.3 and 1506.6(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the public comment period, the Federal agency should 
consult with CEQ and review the nature of any substantive comments 
received and how they were addressed. For consultation to successfully 
conclude, CEQ must provide a written statement that the final proposed 
categorical exclusion was developed in conformity with NEPA and the CEQ 
regulations. CEQ must complete its review within 30 days of receiving 
the final text of the proposed categorical exclusion.
    The final categorical exclusion must then be published in the 
Federal Register. This publication can serve to satisfy the 
requirements that the agency file the categorical exclusion with CEQ, 
and make it readily available to the public.
    The following recommended and required steps establish a 
categorical exclusion as part of the agency NEPA procedures, regardless 
of the format the agency uses for its NEPA procedures:\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ NEPA and the CEQ regulations do not require agency NEPA 
implementing procedures to be promulgated as regulations through 
formal rulemaking; therefore the rulemaking process is not described 
herein. Agencies that use rulemaking should ensure they comply with 
all appropriate requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Draft proposed categorical exclusion based on experience 
indicated in supporting information.
    2. Consult with CEQ on draft of proposed categorical exclusion.
    3. Consult other Federal agencies with similar procedures, 
jurisdiction by law, or special expertise regarding the category of 
activities and their effects.
    4. Publish notice of proposed categorical exclusion in the Federal 
Register for public review and comment.
    5. Consider public comments in developing final categorical 
exclusion.
    6. Consult with CEQ on final categorical exclusion to obtain 
determination of conformity with NEPA and the CEQ regulations.
    7. Publish final categorical exclusion in the Federal Register.
    8. File final categorical exclusion with CEQ.
    9. Make final categorical exclusion readily available to the 
public.

V. Public Involvement in Establishing a Categorical Exclusion

    A NEPA process is not required for establishing or revising agency 
NEPA procedures.\13\ However, engaging the public in the environmental 
aspects of Federal decisionmaking is a key aspect of NEPA and an 
opportunity for public involvement beyond publication in the Federal 
Register for review and comment should be considered.\14\ The Federal 
Register notice requesting comment on the proposed categorical 
exclusion should:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 73 F. Supp. 2d 962, 
972-73 (S.D. Ill. 1999), aff'd, 230 F.3d 947, 954-56 (7th Cir. 
2000).
    \14\ ``Agencies shall: (a) Make diligent efforts to involve the 
public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures.'' 40 CFR 
1506.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> Describe the proposed categorical exclusion and provide 
the proposed text.
    <bullet> Summarize the agency rationale and history for its 
development and advise the public on how to access the agency's 
supporting information and, whenever practicable, include a link to a 
Web site containing the supporting information.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Ready access to all supporting information may minimize the 
need for members of the public to depend on Freedom of Information 
Act requests and enhance the NEPA goals of outreach and disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> Define all applicable terms.
    <bullet> Summarize how the proposed categorical exclusion fits into 
the existing agency NEPA implementation process.
    <bullet> Explain how extraordinary circumstances, and possibly 
other factors such as connected actions and cumulative impacts, may 
limit the use of the categorical exclusion.
    <bullet> Explain available avenues for public comment and feedback 
on the proposed categorical exclusion.
    When establishing a categorical exclusion the Federal agency should 
tailor the type and length of the public involvement to the nature of 
the proposed category of actions and its perceived environmental 
effects. CEQ encourages Federal agencies to engage interested parties 
such as public interest groups, Federal NEPA contacts at other 
agencies, consultants, and Tribal, State, and local government agencies 
to share relevant data, information and concerns. The methods noted in 
40 CFR 1506.6 and other public involvement techniques such as focus 
groups, meetings, e-mail exchanges, conference calls, and Web-based 
forums can be used to stimulate public involvement.

VI. Using an Established Categorical Exclusion

    The CEQ regulations do not address documentation or public 
involvement for using a categorical exclusion. CEQ guidance states:

    ``(T)he Council believes that sufficient information will 
usually be available during the course of normal project development 
to determine the need for an EIS and further that the agency's 
administrative record will clearly document the basis for its 
decision. Accordingly, the Council strongly discourages procedures 
that would require the preparation of additional paperwork to 
document that an activity has been categorically excluded.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Council on Environmental Quality, ``Guidance Regarding NEPA 
Regulations'', 48 FR 34263 (July 28, 1983), available at http://www.nepa.gov/nepa/regs/1983/1983guid.htm.

A. Documentation

    Each Federal agency should decide if a categorical exclusion 
determination warrants preparing additional paperwork and, if so, how 
much documentation is appropriate. Documentation is an important 
component of any adequate administrative record. The extent of the 
documentation should be related to the type of action involved, the 
potential for extraordinary circumstances, and compliance with other 
laws, regulations, and policies.
    A Federal agency may decide to create a concise record for an 
action where

[[Page 54820]]

there are reasonable questions regarding the existence of extraordinary 
circumstances that may create the potential for the use of the 
categorical exclusion to be questioned. If a record is prepared, it 
should cite the categorical exclusion used and show that the agency 
considered: (1) How the action fits within the class of actions 
described in the categorical exclusion, and (2) whether there are any 
extraordinary circumstances that would preclude the project or proposed 
action from qualifying as a categorically excluded action.
    Some courts have required documentation to demonstrate that a 
Federal agency has considered extraordinary circumstances in cases 
where the absence of extraordinary circumstances is not obvious.\17\ 
Documenting the use of a categorical exclusion facilitates judicial 
review under the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires review to 
be based upon a pre-existing record.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Council on Environmental Quality, ``The NEPA Task Force 
Report to the Council on Environmental Quality--Modernizing NEPA 
Implementation,'' p. 58 (Sept. 2003), available at http://www.ceq.eh.doe.gov/ntf.
    \18\ The agency determination that an action is categorically 
excluded may be challenged under the Administrative Procedures Act. 
5 U.S.C. 702 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using a categorical exclusion does not absolve Federal agencies 
from complying with the requirements of other laws, regulations, and 
policies. Documentation created for individual actions or projects may 
be necessary to comply with such requirements. When that is the case, 
all resource analyses and the results of any consultations or 
coordination (e.g., under Endangered Species Act or National Historic 
Preservation Act), should be included or incorporated by reference in 
the administrative record for the action.

B. Public Involvement

    Most Federal agencies do not routinely notify the public when they 
use a categorical exclusion to meet their NEPA responsibilities. In 
situations where there is a high public interest in an action that will 
be categorically excluded, CEQ encourages Federal agencies to involve 
the public in some manner (e.g., notification, scoping), particularly 
when the public can assist the agency in determining whether a proposal 
involves extraordinary circumstances or cumulative impacts.

VII. Periodic Review of Categorical Exclusions

    The CEQ regulations direct Federal agencies to periodically review 
their policies and procedures; however, they do not describe how such a 
review should be conducted.\19\ CEQ encourages Federal agencies to 
develop procedures for identifying and revising categorical exclusions 
that no longer effectively reflect current environmental circumstances 
or where agency procedures, programs, or missions have changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 40 CFR 1506.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Federal agency can keep a record of its experience by tracking 
information provided by agency field offices.\20\ In such cases, a 
Federal agency review of a categorical exclusion could consist of e-
mails, memos, and letters from field offices that include observations 
of the effects of implemented actions, and public input on actions and 
their environmental effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Council on Environmental Quality, ``The NEPA Task Force 
Report to the Council on Environmental Quality--Modernizing NEPA 
Implementation'', p. 63, (Sept. 2003), available at http://www.ceq.eh.doe.gov/ntf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another approach to reviewing existing categorical exclusions is 
through a program review. Program reviews can occur at various levels 
(e.g., field office, division office, headquarters office) and on 
various scales (e.g., geographic location, project type, or as a result 
of an interagency agreement). While a Federal agency may choose to 
initiate a program review that specifically focuses on categorical 
exclusions, it is possible that program reviews with a different focus 
may also be able to provide documentation of experience relevant to a 
categorical exclusion.
    There are many good reasons why Federal agencies should perform 
categorical exclusion reviews. They can serve as the impetus for 
expanding the categorical exclusion to include actions not previously 
categorically excluded. They may help identify additional extraordinary 
circumstances. Categorical exclusion reviews may also help a Federal 
agency consider the appropriate documentation when using certain 
categorical exclusions.
    Finally, the rationale and supporting information for establishing 
or documenting experience with using a categorical exclusion can be 
lost when there are inadequate systems and procedures for recording, 
retrieving, and preserving agency documents and administrative records. 
Therefore, Federal agencies may benefit from a review of current 
practices used for maintaining and preserving such records. Measures to 
ensure future availability may include, but not be limited to, 
redundant storage systems (e.g., multiple drives, paper copies), and 
improvements in the agency electronic and hard copy filing and 
retrieval systems.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Council on Environmental Quality, ``The NEPA Task Force 
Report to the Council on Environmental Quality--Modernizing NEPA 
Implementation'', p. 63, (Sept. 2003), available at http://www.ceq.eh.doe.gov/ntf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public comments are requested on or before October 27, 2006.

    Dated: September 14, 2006.
James L. Connaughton,
Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality.
[FR Doc. 06-7756 Filed 9-18-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3125-W6-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>