Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 67305

section 3306(r)(2) of the Code, relating

to the Federal Unemployment Tax Act

(FUTA) tax treatment of amounts

deferred under or paid from certain

nonqualified deferred compensation

plans (61 FR 2214). The proposed

regulations under section 3306(r)(2)

cross-reference the provisions of the

proposed regulations under section

3121(v)(2), including the proposed

general effective date. Consequently, the

extension of the effective date under the

proposed regulations under section

3121(v)(2) automatically applies to the

proposed regulations under section

3306(r)(2).

The project numbers assigned to the

notices of proposed rulemaking setting

forth the proposed regulations under

section 3121(v)(2) and section 3306(r)(2)

were EE–142–87 and EE–55–95,

respectively. Due to changes in the

Internal Revenue Service’s regulations

numbering system, the project numbers

for this notice of proposed rulemaking

have been changed to REG–209484–87

and REG–209807–95, respectively, as

reflected at the beginning of this

document.

Explanation of Provisions

Section 31.3121(v)(2)–1(g)(1)(i) of the

proposed regulations provides that the

proposed general effective date of the

regulations is January 1, 1997. Because

the final regulations have not been

issued, this document contains an

amendment to the proposed regulations

to extend the proposed general effective

date to January 1, 1998. This extension

of the proposed general effective date

also applies to § 31.3306(r)(2)–1 of the

proposed regulations due to the crossreference therein to the provisions in

the proposed regulations under section

3121(v)(2).

Special Analyses

It has been determined that this notice

of proposed rulemaking is not a

significant regulatory action as defined

in EO 12866. Therefore, a regulatory

assessment is not required.

It also has been determined that

section 553(b) of the Administrative

Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does

not apply to these regulations, and

because these regulations do not impose

on small entities a collection of

information requirement, the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does

not apply. Therefore, a Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis is not required.

Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code,

this notice of proposed rulemaking will

be submitted to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration for comment on its

impact on small business.

Comments and Requests for a Public

Hearing

Before this revision to the proposed

regulations is adopted as part of the

final regulations, consideration will be

given to any written comments

(preferably a signed original and eight

(8) copies) that are submitted timely to

the IRS. All comments will be available

for public inspection and copying. A

public hearing may be scheduled if

requested in writing by a person that

timely submits written comments. If a

public hearing is scheduled, notice of

the date, time, and place for the hearing

will be published in the Federal

Register.

Drafting Information

The principal author of this revision

to the proposed regulations is Janine

Cook, Office of the Associate Chief

Counsel (Employee Benefits and Exempt

Organizations), IRS. However, other

personnel from the IRS and Treasury

Department participated in its

development.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 31

Employment taxes, Income taxes,

Penalties, Pensions, Railroad retirement,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Social security,

Unemployment tax, Withholding.

Proposed Amendments to the

Regulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 31 is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 31—EMPLOYMENT TAXES AND

COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT

SOURCE

Paragraph 1. The authority citation

for part 31 continues to read in part as

follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Par. 2. Section 31.3121(v)(2)–1 as

proposed to be added at 61 FR 2199,

January 25, 1996, is amended by

revising paragraph (g)(1)(i) to read as

follows:

§ 31.3121(v)(2)–1 Treatment of amounts

deferred under certain nonqualified

deferred compensation plans.

* * * * *

(g) Effective date and transition

rules—(1) General effective date—(i)

Effective date. Except as otherwise

provided in this paragraph (g) or in

§ 31.3121(v)–2, this section is effective

for amounts deferred and benefits paid

on or after January 1, 1998.

* * * * *

Michael P. Dolan,

Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

[FR Doc. 97–33247 Filed 12–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force

32 CFR Part 989

RIN 0701–AA56

Environmental Impact Analysis

Process (EIAP)

AGENCY: Department of the Air Force,

Department of Defense.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of the Air

Force proposes to revise its instruction

to improve the Air Force process for

compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and

Executive Order 12114, Environmental

Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions.

The revisions integrate environmental

analysis and align environmental

document approval levels with the Air

Force decision-making process. It also

expands Air Force environmental

participants and responsibilities of the

Environmental Planning Function (EPF)

and the proponent of an action. The

public is invited to submit comments on

these changes to the point of contact

listed below.

DATES: Comments must be received no

later than February 23, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted to HQ USAF/ILEVP, 1260 Air

Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330–

1260.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Kenneth L. Reinertson or Mr. Jack

C. Bush, (703) 695–8942.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion of Major Issues

a. References to procurement

publications that provide separate

procedures for application of NEPA in

the acquisition area are updated.

b. References to office symbols are

updated.

c. Specific guidance is provided in

section 989.3(c)(3) for application of

NEPA to single manager acquisition

programs, specifying, among other

things, that the Air Force Acquisition

Executive Office is the final approval

authority for all system-related NEPA

documents.
67306 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

d. More specific reference is provided

in section 989.3(c)(4) as to who are key

Air Force participants and to the need

for an integrated team effort involving

other federal agencies, state, Tribal, and

local governments, and interested

members of the public.

e. More specific guidance is provided

in section 989.3(d)(1) to ensure the EIAP

is integrated early in the planning stages

of an action.

f. Specific guidance is provided in

section 989.3(d)(4) to promote early

internal scoping in order to determine

what level of environmental analysis is

performed.

g. In section 989.3(e), the

environmental planning function (EPF)

is designated as the primary support to

the proponent in EIAP actions. The

EPF’s responsibilities are specifically

explained.

h. Section 989.3(h) provides for

increased participation of the public

affairs office in the EIAP process.

i. Throughout the instruction,

whenever participation of state and

local governments is provided for,

Tribal governments have been added.

j. In section 989.5(b), certain

continuing internal reporting

requirements regarding aircraft

beddown and unit realignment actions

are eliminated.

k. In section 989.8(c), additional

language notes that only in rare

instances is the no-action alternative

excused by law from analysis.

l. In section 989.13(c), additional

language notes the distinction, in cases

of analysis abroad, between exemptions

under DoDD 6050.7 and categorical

exclusions (CATEXs). The exemptions

are provided by Executive Order 12114.

CATEXs are provided by the

implementing agency.

m. In section 989.14(d), additional

guidance is provided to promote

substantive but brief EIAP analyses so as

to avoid unnecessary data and keep

documents to a usable length.

n. In section 989.14(k), hazardous

waste disposal sites have been deleted

from the list of actions normally

requiring an EA.

o. The provision for abbreviated EAs

has been deleted. As noted above,

analyses should be as lengthy as

necessary but no more so; no provision

for a special type of EA is necessary.

p. In section 989.14(l), the proponent

is now required to involve other

interested federal agencies, state, Tribal,

and local governments, and the public

in preparing an EA.

q. In section 989.15(e), requirements

regarding public review of EAs and

findings of no significant impact

(FONSIs) are clarified to ensure the

public understands that the FONSI has

not been signed prior to public review.

r. In section 989.15(e)(2), the list of

instances when mandatory 30 day

public review of an EA and FONSI is

required now includes those that would

have a disproportionately high and

adverse environmental effect on

minority and low-income populations.

s. In section 989.18(a), more detailed

guidance is provided to improve the

scoping process for environmental

impact statements (EISs). The guidance

provides for an early, continuing,

iterative process involving other

governmental entities, Congress, and the

public in a more meaningful manner. It

also provides for scoping to continue

through preparation of the draft EIS.

t. In section 989.18(b), specific

provision is made to include minority

and low-income populations in the

scoping process.

u. In section 989.19(c)(3), specific

provision is made to include minority

and low-income populations in the

public review process of EISs.

v. In section 989.27, the statement

that compliance with OSHA standards

will mitigate hazards has been deleted.

w. A new Section 989.32 addresses

aircraft noise data used in EIAP

analysis.

x. A new Section 989.33 requires

compliance with E.O. 12898, Federal

Actions to Address Environmental

Justice in Minority Populations and

Low-Income Populations.

y. In section 989.34(b), guidance is

clarified regarding emergency situations

and the need to still comply with NEPA.

Compliance is still required, but

emergency responses may take place

while completing the EIAP.

z. In section 989.35(b), authority is

provided to utilize the internet to

distribute documents and notices.

aa. A new Section 989.36 is included

to address waivers for unusual

circumstances and to allow

experimentation to help the EIAP

process grow. These waivers can only be

approved by the Air Force Secretariat.

ab. The definition of ‘‘scoping’’ is

changed to include affirmative efforts to

communicate with other federal

agencies, state, Tribal, and local

governments, and the public.

ac. In section A2.2.8, an additional

example dealing with proposals having

a significant adverse effect on minority

and low-income populations is included

in the list of examples where use of a

categorical exclusion is likely to require

additional analysis.

ad. In section A2.3, categorical

exclusion A2.3.10 is changed to include

lead-based paint as an additional

example.

ae. In section A2.3, categorical

exclusion A2.3.18 is changed to clarify

that it does not apply in the case of a

transfer to GSA.

af. In section A2.3, categorical

exclusion A2.3.26 is changed to refer to

the Defense Environmental Restoration

Program and RCRA Corrective Action

sites in place of a generic reference.

Additionally, the reference to the

categorical exclusion not applying to the

selection of a remedial action is

eliminated.

ag. In section A2.3, categorical

exclusion A2.3.30 is changed by

deleting the reference to separate

evaluation for long term cleanup and

remediation activities.

ah. In section A2.3, categorical

exclusion A2.3.31 is changed by

restricting its use to non-repetitive

situations. It also requires

documentation of its use.

ai. In section A2.3, categorical

exclusion A2.3.36 is changed by adding

an additional limitation of 3000 feet

above ground level.

aj. In section A3.1.3, flexibility is

provided to public hearing formats by

allowing experimentation with different

formats than normally used, depending

on the circumstances. Approval for

deviations must be approved by the Air

Force Secretariat.

ak. In section A3.2.1.3, the public

affairs office will now always purchase

a public advertisement to advise public

hearings.

al. In section A3.6, responsibility for

preparing and checking the transcript of

a public hearing is shifted from the

military trial judge to the EIS

preparation team.

am. The provision for organizing

speakers by subject at a public hearing

has been deleted.

an. In addition to the above specific

items, there have been numerous

grammatical changes and minor

clarifications made to the instruction.

The Department of the Air Force has

determined that this rule is not a major

rule because it will not have an annual

effect on the economy of $100 million

or more. The Secretary of the Air Force

has certified that this rule is exempt

from the requirements of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612,

because this rule does not have a

significant economic impact on small

entities as defined by the Act, and does

not impose any obligatory information

requirements beyond internal Air Force

use.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 989

Environmental protection,

Environmental impact statements.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 67307

1Copies of the publications are available, at cost,

from the National Technical Information Service,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal

Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

2See footnote 1 to § 989.1. 3See footnote 1 to § 989.1.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, the United States Air Force

proposes to revise 32 CFR part 989 as

follows:

PART 989—ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

ANALYSIS PROCESS (EIAP)

Sec.

989.1 Purpose.

989.2 Concept.

989.3 Responsibilities.

989.4 Initial considerations.

989.5 Organizational relationships.

989.6 Budgeting and funding.

989.7 Requests from non-Air Force agencies

or entities.

989.8 Analysis of alternatives.

989.9 Cooperation and adoption.

989.10 Tiering.

989.11 Combining EIAP with other

documentation.

989.12 Air Force Form 813 Request for

Environmental Impact Analysis.

989.13 Categorical exclusion.

989.14 Environmental assessment.

989.15 Finding of no significant impact.

989.16 Environmental impact statement.

989.17 Notice of intent.

989.18 Scoping.

989.19 Draft EIS.

989.20 Final EIS.

989.21 Record of decision (ROD).

989.22 Mitigation.

989.23 Contractor prepared documents.

989.24 Public notification.

989.25 Base closure and realignment.

989.26 Classifed actions (40 CFR 1507.3(c)).

989.27 Occupational safety and health.

989.28 Airspace and range proposals.

989.29 Force structure and unit move

proposals.

989.30 Air quality.

989.31 Pollution prevention.

989.32 Noise.

989.33 Environmental justice.

989.34 Special and emergency procedures.

989.35 Reporting requirements.

989.36 Waivers.

989.37 Procedures for analysis abroad

989.38 Requirements for analysis abroad.

Attachment 1 to Part 989—Gloassary of

References, Abbreviations, Acronyms, and

Terms.

Attachment 2 to Part 989—Categorical

Exclusions.

Attachment 3 to Part 989—Procedures for

Holding Public Hearings on Draft

Environmental Impact Statements (EIS).

Authority: 10 U.S.C. 8013.

§ 989.1 Purpose.

(a) This part implements the Air Force

Environmental Impact Analysis Process

(EIAP) and provides procedures for

environmental impact analysis both

within the United States and abroad.

Because the authority for, and rules

governing, each aspect of the EIAP differ

depending on whether the action takes

place in the United States or outside the

United States, this part provides largely

separate procedures for each type of

action. Consequently, the main body of

this part deals primarily with

environmental impact analysis under

the authority of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA) (Pub. L. 91–190, 42 United

States Code (U.S.C.) 4321–4347), while

the primary procedures for

environmental impact analysis of

actions outside the United States in

accordance with Executive Order (E.O.)

12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of

Major Federal Actions, are contained in

§§ 989.32 and 989.33.

(b) The procedures in this part are

essential to achieve and maintain

compliance with NEPA and the Council

on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

Regulations for Implementing the

Procedural Provisions of the NEPA (40

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts

1500–1508, referred to as the ‘‘CEQ

Regulations’’). Further requirements are

contained in the Department of Defense

Directive (DoDD) 4715.1, Environmental

Security, Department of Defense

Instruction (DoDI) 4715.9,

Environmental Planning and Analysis,

DoDD 5000.1, Defense Acquisition, and

Department of Defense 5000.2–R,

Mandatory Procedures for Major

Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs)

and Major Automated Information

Systems (MAIS) Acquisition Programs

with Change 1.1 To comply with NEPA

and complete the EIAP, the CEQ

Regulations and this part must be used

together.

(c) Air Force activities abroad will

comply with this part, Executive Order

12114, and 32 CFR Part 187 (DoDD

6050.7, Environmental Effects Abroad of

Major Department of Defense Actions,

March 31, 1979). To comply with E.O.

12114 and complete the EIAP, the

Executive Order, 32 CFR part 187, and

this part must be used together.

(d) Attachment 1 is a glossary of

references, abbreviations, acronyms, and

terms. Refer to 40 CFR part 1508 for

definitions of other terminology used in

this part.

§ 989.2 Concept.

(a) This part provides a framework on

how to comply with NEPA and

Executive Order 12114 according to Air

Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 32–70.2

The Air Force specific procedures and

requirements in this part are intended to

be used by Air Force decision makers to

fully comply with NEPA and the EIAP.

(b) Major Commands (MAJCOM)

provide additional implementing

guidance in their supplemental

publications to this part. MAJCOM

supplements must identify the specific

offices that have implementation

responsibility and include any guidance

needed to comply with this part. All

references to MAJCOMs in this part

include the Air National Guard

Readiness Center (ANGRC) and other

agencies designated as ‘‘MAJCOM

equivalent’’ by HQ USAF.

§ 989.3 Responsibilities.

(a) Office of the Secretary of the Air

Force.

(1) The Deputy Assistant Secretary of

the Air Force for Environment, Safety

and Occupational Health (SAF/MIQ):

(i) Develops environmental planning

policy and provides oversight of the

EIAP program.

(ii) Determines the level of

environmental analysis required for

especially important, visible, or

controversial Air Force proposals and

approves selected Environmental

Assessments (EAs) and all

Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)

prepared for Air Force actions, whether

classified or unclassified, except as

specified in (c)(3) of this section.

(iii) Is the liaison on environmental

matters with Federal agencies and

national-level public interest

organizations.

(iv) Ensures appropriate offices in the

Office of the Secretary of Defense are

kept informed on EIAP matters of

Defense-wide interest.

(2) The General Counsel (SAF/GC).

Provides final legal advice to SAF/MI,

HQ USAF, and HQ USAF Environment,

Safety and Occupational Health

Committee (ESOHC) on EIAP issues.

(3) Office of Legislative Liaison (SAF/

LL):

(i) Assists with narrowing and

defining key issues by arranging

consultations with congressional

delegations on potentially sensitive

actions.

(ii) Distributes draft and final EISs to

congressional delegations.

(iii) Reviews and provides the Office

of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) with

analyses of the Air Force position on

proposed and enrolled legislation and

executive department testimony dealing

with EIAP issues.

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

(i) Reviews and clears environmental

documents in accordance with Air

Force Instruction 35–205, Air Force

Security and Policy Review,3 prior to

public release.

(ii) Assists the environmental

planning function and the Air Force

Legal Services Agency, Trial Judiciary
67308 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

4See footnote 1 to § 989.1. 5See footnote 1 to § 989.1. 6See footnote 1 of § 989.1.

Division (AFLSA/JAJT), in planning and

conducting public scoping meetings and

hearings.

(iii) Ensures that public affairs aspects

of all EIAP actions are conducted in

accordance with this part and Air Force

Instruction (AFI) 35–202,

Environmental Community

Involvement4.

(iv) The National Guard Bureau,

Office of Public Affairs (NGB–PA), will

assume the responsibilities of SAF/PA

for the EIAP involving the National

Guard Bureau, Air Directorate.

(b) Headquarters US Air Force (HQ

USAF). The Civil Engineer (HQ USAF/

ILE) is responsible for execution of the

EIAP program. The National Guard

Bureau Air Directorate (NGB–CF)

oversees the EIAP for Air National

Guard actions.

(c) MAJCOMs, the Air National

Guard, Field Operating Agencies

(FOAs), and Single Manager Programs.

These organizations establish

procedures that comply with this part

wherever they are the host unit for

preparing and using required

environmental documentation in

making decisions about proposed

actions and programs within their

commands or areas of responsibility.

(1) Air Force Center for

Environmental Excellence (AFCEE). The

AFCEE Environmental Conservation

and Planning Directorate (AFCEE/EC) is

available to provide technical assistance

and has the capability to provide

contract support to the proponent, EPF,

and MAJCOMs in developing EIAP

documents.

(2) Air Force Regional Environmental

Offices (REOs). REOs review non-Air

Force environmental documents that

may have an impact on the Air Force.

Requests for review of such documents

should be directed to the proper REO

(Atlanta, Dallas, or San Francisco) along

with any relevant comments. The REO:

(i) Notifies the proponent, after

receipt, that the REO is the single point

of contact for the Air Force review of the

document.

(ii) Requests comments from

potentially affected installations,

MAJCOMs, the ANG, and HQ USAF, as

appropriate.

(iii) Consolidates comments into the

Air Force official response and submits

the final response to the proponent.

(iv) Provides to HQ USAF/ILEVP and

the appropriate MAJCOMs and

installations a copy of the final response

and a complete set of all review

comments.

(3) Single Manager Acquisition

Programs (system-related NEPA). The

proponent Single Manager (i.e., System

Program Director, Materiel Group

Managers, and Product Group

Managers) for all programs, regardless of

acquisition category, shall comply with

DoD 5000.2–R.5 SAF/AQR, as the Air

Force Acquisition Executive Office, is

the final approval authority for all

system-related NEPA documents. SAF/

AQR is responsible for accomplishing

appropriate Headquarters EPC/ESOHC

review. The Single Manager will obtain

appropriate Product Center EPC

approval prior to forwarding necessary

EIAP documents (i.e., NOIs and

preliminary draft and final EAs and

EISs) to SAF/AQR. The Single Manager

will allow for concurrent review of EIAP

documents by HQ AFMC/ILEV and the

Operational Command (HQ ACC, HQ

AMC, HQ AFSPC, etc.). The Single

Manager is responsible for budgeting

and funding EIAP efforts, including

EIAP for research, development, testing,

and evaluation activities.

(4) Key Air Force Environmental

Participants. The EIAP must be

approached as an integrated team effort

including key participants within the

Air Force and also involving outside

federal agencies, state, Tribal, and local

governments, interested outside parties,

citizens groups, and the general public.

Key Air Force participants may include

the following functional areas, as well

as others:

Proponent

Civil Engineers/Environmental Planning

Function

Staff Judge Advocate

Public Affairs

Medical Service (Bioenvironmental

Engineer)

Safety Office

Range and Airspace Managers

Bases and Units

Plans and Programs

Logistics

Personnel

Legislative Liaison

(d) Proponent. Each office, unit, or

activity at any level that initiates Air

Force actions is responsible for:

(1) The EIAP and shall ensure

integration of the EIAP during the initial

planning stages of proposed actions so

that planning and decisions reflect

environmental values, delays are

avoided later in the process, and

potential conflicts are precluded.

(2) Notifying the EPF of a pending

action and completion Section I of AF

Form 813. Prepare the Description Of

Proposed Action and Alternatives

(DOPAA) through an interdisciplinary

team approach including the EPF and

other key Air Force participants.

(3) Identifying key decision points

and coordinating with the EPF on EIAP

phasing to ensure that environment

documents are available to the decisionmaker before the final decision is made

and ensuring that, until the EIAP is

complete, resources are not committed

prejudicing the selection of alternatives

nor actions taken having an adverse

environmental impact or limiting the

choice of reasonable alternatives.

(4) Determining, with the EPF, as

early as possible whether to prepare an

EIS. The proponent and the EPF will

conduct an early internal scoping

process as part of the EIAP process. The

internal scoping process should involve

key Air Force environmental

participants (See § 989.3(c)(4)) and other

Air Force offices as needed and

conclude with preparation of a DOPAA.

For complex or detailed EAs or EISs, an

outside facilitator trained in EIAP may

be used to focus and guide the

discussion. Department of the Air Force

personnel, rather than contractors,

should generally be used to prepare the

DOPAA.

(5) Presenting the DOPAA to the EPC

for review and comment.

(6) Coordinating with the EPF, Public

Affairs, and Staff Judge Advocate prior

to organizing public or interagency

meetings which deal with EIAP

elements of a proposed action and

involving persons or agencies outside

the Air Force.

(7) Subsequent to the decision to

prepare an EIS, assisting the EPF and

Public Affairs Office in preparing a draft

Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS.

All NOIs must be forwarded through the

MAJCOM EPF to HQ USAF/ILEV for

review and publication in the Federal

Register. Publication in the Federal

Register is accomplished in accordance

with AFI 37–120, Federal Register.6

(See § 989.17.)

(8) Ensuring that proposed actions are

implemented as described in the final

EIAP decision documents.

(e) Environmental Planning Function

(EPF). At every level of command, the

EPF is one of the key Air Force

participants responsible for the EIAP.

The EPF can be the environmental flight

within a civil engineer squadron, a

separate environmental management

office at an installation, the ILEV at

MAJCOMs, or an equivalent

environmental function located with a

program office. The EPF:

(1) Supports the EIAP by bringing key

participants in at the beginning of a

proposed action and involving them

throughout the EIAP. Key participants
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 67309

7See footnote 1 to § 989.1.

8See footnote 1 to § 989.1. 9See footnote 1 to § 989.1.

play an important role in defining and

focusing key issues at the initial stage.

(2) At the request of the proponent,

prepares environmental documents

using an interdisciplinary approach, or

obtains technical assistance through Air

Force channels on contract support.

Assists the proponent in obtaining

review of environmental documents.

(3) Assists the proponent in preparing

a (DOPAA) and actively supports the

proponent during all phases of the

EIAP.

(4) Evaluates proposed actions and

completes Section II and III of AF Form

813, Request for Environmental Impact

Analysis, subsequent to submission by

the proponent and determines whether

a Categorical Exclusion (CATEX)

applies. The responsible EPF member

signs the AF Form 813 certification.

(5) Identifies and documents, with

technical advice from the

Bioenvironmental Engineer and other

staff members, environmental quality

standards that relate to the action under

evaluation.

(6) Supports the proponent in

preparing environmental documents, or

obtains technical assistance through Air

Force channels or contract support and

adopts the documents as official Air

Force papers when completed and

approved.

(7) Ensures the EIAP is conducted on

base-level and MAJCOM-level plans,

including contingency plans for the

training, movement, and operations of

Air Force personnel and equipment.

(8) Prepares the Notice of Intent (NOI)

to prepare an EIS with assistance from

the proponent and the Public Affairs

Office.

(9) Prepares applicable portions of the

Certificate of Compliance for each

military construction project according

to AFI 32–1021, Planning and

Programming of Facility Construction

Projects.7

(10) Submits one hard copy and one

electronic copy of the final EA/Finding

Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and

EIS/Record of Decision (ROD) to the

Defense Technical Information Center.

(f) Environmental Protection

Committee (EPC). The EPC helps

commanders assess, review and approve

EIAP documents in accordance with

AFI 32–7005, Environmental Protection

Committee.8

(g) Staff Judge Advocate (SJA). The

Staff Judge Advocate:

(1) Advises the proponent, EPF, and

EPC on CATEX determinations and the

legal sufficiency of environmental

documents.

(2) Advises the EPF during the

scoping process of issues that should be

addressed in EIS’s and on procedures

for the conduct of public hearings.

(3) Coordinates the appointment of

the independent hearing officer with

AFLSA/JAJT and provides support for

the hearing officer in cases of public

hearings on the draft EIS. The

proponent pays administrative and

Temporary Duty (TDY) costs. The

hearing officer presides at hearings and

makes final decisions regarding hearing

procedures.

(4) Promptly refers all matters causing

or likely to cause substantial public

controversy or litigation through

channels to AFLSA/JACE (or NGB-JA).

(h) Public Affairs Officer. This officer:

(1) Advises the EPF, the EPC, and the

proponent on public affairs activities on

proposed actions and reviews

environmental documents for public

involvement issues;

(2) Advises the EPF of issues and

competing interests that should be

addressed in the EIS or EA.

(3) Assists in preparation of and

attends public meetings or media

sessions on environmental issues.

(4) Prepares, coordinates, and

distributes news releases and other

public information materials related to

the proposal and associated EIAP

documents.

(5) Notifies the media (television,

radio, newspaper) and purchases

advertisements when newspapers will

not run notices free of charge. The EPF

will fund the required advertisements.

(6) Determines and ensures Security

Review requirements are met for all

information proposed for public release.

(7) For more comprehensive

instructions about public affairs

activities in environmental matters, see

AFI 35–202.9

(i) Medical Service. The Medical

Service, represented by the

Bioenvironmental Engineer, provides

technical assistance to EPF’s in the areas

of environmental health standards,

environmental effects, and

environmental monitoring capabilities.

The Air Force Armstrong Laboratory,

Occupational and Environmental Health

Directorate, provides additional

technical support.

(j) Safety Office. The Safety Office

provides technical review and

assistance to EPFs to ensure

consideration of safety standards and

requirements.

§ 989.4 Initial considerations.

Air Force personnel will:

(a) Consider and document

environmental effects on proposed Air

Force actions through AF Forms 813,

EAs, FONSIs, EISs, EIS (RODs), and

documents prepared according to E.O.

12114.

(b) Evaluate proposed actions for

possible CATEX from environmental

impact analysis (attachment 2).

(c) Make environmental documents,

comments, and responses, including

those of other federal agencies, state,

Tribal, and local governments, and the

public, part of the record available for

review and use at all levels of decision

making.

(d) Review the specific alternatives

analyzed in the EIAP when evaluating

the proposal prior to decision making.

(e) Ensure that alternatives to be

considered by the decision-maker are

both reasonable and within the range of

alternatives analyzed in the

environmental documents.

(f) Pursue the objective of furthering

foreign policy and national security

interests while at the same time

considering important environmental

factors.

(g) Consider the environmental effects

of actions that affect the global

commons.

(h) Determine whether any foreign

government should be informed of the

availability of environmental

documents. Formal arrangements with

foreign governments concerning

environmental matters and

communications with foreign

governments concerning environmental

agreements will be coordinated with the

Department of State by the Deputy

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for

Environment, Safety, and Occupational

Health (SAF/MIQ) through the Assistant

Secretary of Defense. This coordination

requirement does not apply to informal

working-level communications and

arrangements.

§ 989.5 Organizational relationships.

The host EPF manages the EIAP using

an interdisciplinary team approach.

This is especially important for tenantproposed actions, because the host

command is responsible for the EIAP for

actions related to the host command’s

installations.

(a) The host command prepares

environmental documents internally or

directs the host base to prepare the

environmental documents.

Environmental document preparation

may be by contract (requiring the tenant

to fund the EIAP), by the tenant unit, or

by the host. Regardless of the

preparation method, the host command

will ensure the required environmental

analysis is accomplished before a

decision is made on the proposal and an

action is undertaken. Support
67310 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

agreements should provide specific

procedures to ensure host oversight of

tenant compliance, tenant funding or

reimbursement of host EIAP costs, and

tenant compliance with the EIAP

regardless of the tenant not being an Air

Force organization.

(b) For aircraft beddown and unit

realignment actions, program elements

are identified in the Program Objective

Memorandum. Subsequent Programs

Change Requests must include AF Form

813.

(c) To ensure timely initiation of the

EIAP, SAF/AQ forwards information

copies of all Mission Need Statements

and System Operational Requirements

Documents to SAF/MIQ, HQ USAF/

ILEV (or ANGRC/CEV), the Air Force

Medical Operations Agency, Aerospace

Medicine Office (AFMOA/SG), and the

affected MAJCOM EPFs.

(d) The MAJCOM of the scheduling

unit managing affected airspace is

responsible for preparing and approving

environmental analyses.

§ 989.6 Budgeting and funding.

Contract EIAP efforts are proponent

MAJCOM responsibilities. Each year,

the EPF programs for anticipated outyear EIAP workloads based on inputs

from command proponents. If

proponent offices exceed the budget in

a given year or identify unforeseen

requirements, the proponent offices

must provide the remaining funding.

§ 989.7 Requests from Non-Air Force

agencies or entities.

Non-Air Force agencies or entities

may request the Air Force to undertake

an action, such as issuing a permit or

outleasing Air Force property, that may

primarily benefit the requester or an

agency other than the Air Force. The

EPF and other Air Force staff elements

must identify such requests and

coordinate with the proponent of the

non-Air Force proposal, as well as with

concerned state, Tribal, and local

governments.

(a) Air Force decisions on such

proposals must take into consideration

the potential environmental impacts of

the applicant’s proposed activity (as

described in an Air Force environmental

document), insofar as the proposed

action involves Air Force property or

programs, or requires Air Force

approval.

(b) The Air Force may require the

requester to prepare, at the requester’s

expense, an analysis of environmental

impacts (40 CFR 1506.5), or the

requester may be required to pay for an

EA or EIS to be prepared by a contractor

selected and supervised by the Air

Force. The EPF may permit requesters to

submit draft EAs for their proposed

actions, except for actions described in

§ 989.16(a) and (b), or for actions the

EPF has reason to believe will

ultimately require an EIS. For EISs the

EPF has the responsibility to prepare the

environmental document, although

responsibility for funding remains with

the requester. The fact that the requester

has prepared environmental documents

at its own expense does not commit the

Air Force to allow or undertake the

proposed action or its alternatives. The

requester is not entitled to any

preference over other potential parties

with whom the Air Force might contract

or make similar arrangements.

(c) In no event is the requester who

prepares or funds an environmental

analysis entitled to reimbursement from

the Air Force. When requesters prepare

environmental documents outside the

Air Force, the Air Force must

independently evaluate and approve the

scope and content of the environmental

analyses before using the analyses to

fulfill EIAP requirements. Any outside

environmental analysis must evaluate

reasonable alternatives as defined in

§ 989.8.

§ 989.8 Analysis of alternatives.

The Air Force must analyze

reasonable alternatives to the proposed

action and the ‘‘no action’’ alternative in

all EAs and EISs, as fully as the

proposed action alternative.

(a) ‘‘Reasonable’’ alternatives are

those that meet the underlying purpose

and need for the proposed action and

that would cause a reasonable person to

inquire further before choosing a

particular course of action. Reasonable

alternatives are not limited to those

directly within the power of the Air

Force to implement. They may involve

another government agency or military

service to assist in the project or even

to become the lead agency. The Air

Force must also consider reasonable

alternatives raised during the scoping

process (see § 989.18) or suggested by

others, as well as combinations of

alternatives. The Air Force need not

analyze highly speculative alternatives,

such as those requiring a major, unlikely

change in law or governmental policy.

If the Air Force identifies a large

number of reasonable alternatives, it

may limit alternatives selected for

detailed environmental analysis to a

reasonable range or to a reasonable

number of examples covering the full

spectrum of alternatives.

(b) The Air Force may expressly

eliminate alternatives from detailed

analysis, based on reasonable selection

standards (for example, operational,

technical, or environmental standards

suitable to a particular project). In

consultation with the EPF, proponents

may develop written selection standards

to firmly establish what is a

‘‘reasonable’’ alternative for a particular

project, but they must not so narrowly

define these standards that they

unnecessarily limit consideration to the

proposal initially favored by

proponents. This discussion of

reasonable alternatives applies equally

to EAs and EISs.

(c) Except in those rare instances

where excused by law, the Air Force

must always consider and assess the

environmental impacts of the ‘‘no

action’’ alternative. ‘‘No action’’ may

mean either that current management

practice will not change or that the

proposed action will not take place. If

no action would result in other

predictable actions, those actions

should be discussed within the no

action alternative section. The

discussion of the no action alternative

and the alternatives should be

comparable in detail to that of the

proposed action.

§ 989.9 Cooperation and adoption.

(a) Lead and Cooperating Agency (40

CFR 1501.5–1501.6). When the Air

Force is a cooperating agency in the

preparation of an EIS, the Air Force

reviews and approves principal

environmental documents within the

EIAP as if they were prepared by the Air

Force. The Air Force executes a ROD for

its program decisions that are based on

an EIS for which the Air Force is a

cooperating agency. The Air Force may

also be a lead or cooperating agency on

an EA using similar procedures, but the

MAJCOM EPC retains approval

authority unless otherwise directed by

HQ USAF. Before invoking provisions

of 40 CFR 1501.5(e), the lowest

authority level possible resolves

disputes concerning which agency is the

lead or cooperating agency.

(b) Adoption of EA or EIS. The Air

Force, even though not a cooperating

agency, may adopt an EA or EIS

prepared by another entity where the

proposed action is substantially the

same as the action described in the EA

or EIS. In this case, the EA or EIS must

be recirculated as a final EA or EIS but

the Air Force must independently

review the EA or EIS and determine that

it is current and that it satisfies the

requirements of this part. The Air Force

then prepares its own FONSI or ROD, as

the case may be. In the situation where

the proposed action is not substantially

the same as that described in the EA or

the EIS, the Air Force may adopt the EA

or EIS, or a portion thereof, by
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 67311

10See footnote 1 to § 989.1. 11See footnote 1 to § 989.1

circulating the EA or EIS as a draft and

then preparing the final EA or EIS.

§ 989.10 Tiering.

The Air Force should use tiered (40

CFR 1502.20) environmental

documents, and environmental

documents prepared by other agencies,

to eliminate repetitive discussions of the

same issues and to focus on the issues

relating to specific actions. If the Air

Force adopts another Federal agency’s

environmental document, subsequent

Air Force environmental documents

may also be tiered.

§ 989.11 Combining EIAP with other

documentation.

(a) The EPF combines environmental

analysis with other related

documentation when practicable (40

CFR 1506.4) following the procedures

prescribed by the CEQ regulations and

this part.

(b) The EPF must integrate

comprehensive planning (AFI 32–7062,

Air Force Comprehensive Planning 10)

with the requirements of the EIAP. Prior

to making a decision to proceed, the

EPF must analyze the environmental

impacts that could result from

implementation of a proposal identified

in the comprehensive plan.

§ 989.12 Air Form 813, Request for

Environmental Impact Analysis.

The Air Force uses AF Form 813 to

document the need for environmental

analysis or for certain CATEX

determinations for proposed actions.

The form helps narrow and focus the

issues to potential environmental

impacts. AF Form 813 must be retained

with the EA or EIS to record the

focusing of environmental issues. The

rationale for not addressing

environmental issues must also be

recorded in the EA or EIS.

§ 989.13 Categorical exclusion.

(a) CATEXs define those categories of

actions that do not individually or

cumulatively have potential for

significant effect on the environment

and do not, therefore, require further

environmental analysis in an EA or an

EIS. The list of Air Force-approved

CATEXs is in attachment 2.

Supplements to this part may not add

CATEXs or expand the scope of the

CATEXs in attachment 2.

(b) Characteristics of categories of

actions that usually do not require

either an EIS or an EA (in the absence

of extraordinary circumstances) include:

(1) Minimal adverse effect on

environmental quality.

(2) No significant change to existing

environmental conditions.

(3) No significant cumulative

environmental impact.

(4) Socioeconomic effects only.

(5) Similarity to actions previously

assessed and found to have no

significant environmental impacts.

(c) CATEXs apply to actions in the

United States and abroad. General

exemptions specific to actions abroad

are in 32 CFR part 187. The EPF or other

decision-maker forwards requests for

additional exemption determinations for

actions abroad to HQ USAF/ILEV with

a justification letter.

(d) Normally, any decision-making

level may determine the applicability of

a CATEX and need not formally record

the determination on AF Form 813 or

elsewhere, except as noted in the

CATEX list.

(e) Application of a CATEX to an

action does not eliminate the need to

meet air conformity requirements (see

§ 989.28).

§ 989.14 Environmental assessment.

(a) When a proposed action is one not

usually requiring an EIS but is not

categorically excluded, the EPF

supports the proponent in preparing an

EA (40 CFR 1508.9). Every EA must lead

to either a FONSI, a decision to prepare

an EIS, or no decision on the proposal.

(b) Whenever a proposed action

usually requires an EIS, the EPF

responsible for the EIAP may prepare an

EA to definitively determine if an EIS is

required based on the analysis of

environmental impacts. Alternatively,

the EPF may choose to bypass the EA

and proceed with preparation of an EIS.

(c) An EA is a written analysis that:

(1) Provides analysis sufficient to

determine whether to prepare an EIS or

a FONSI.

(2) Aids the Air Force in complying

with the NEPA when no EIS is required.

(d) The length of an EA should be as

short and concise as possible, while

matching the magnitude of the proposal.

An EA briefly discusses the need for the

proposed action, reasonable alternatives

to the proposed action, the affected

environment, the environmental

impacts of the proposed action and

alternatives (including the ‘‘no action’’

alternative), and a listing of agencies

and persons consulted during

preparation. The EA should not contain

long descriptions or lengthy, detailed

data. Rather, incorporate by reference

background data to support the concise

discussion of the proposal and relevant

issues.

(e) The format for the EA may be the

same as the EIS. The alternatives section

of an EA and an EIS are similar and

should follow the alternatives analysis

guidance outlined in § 989.8.

(f) The EPF should design the EA to

facilitate rapidly transforming the

document into an EIS if the

environmental analysis reveals a

significant impact.

(g) EAs for actions where the Air

Force has wetlands or floodplains

compliance responsibilities (E.O. 11988

and E.O. 11990) require SAF/MIQ

approval. As a finding contained in the

draft FONSI, a Finding of No Practicable

Alternative (FONPA) must be submitted

(five hard copies and an electronic

version) through the MAJCOM EPF to

HQ USAF/ILEVP when the alternative

selected is located in wetlands or

floodplains, and must discuss why no

other practicable alternative exists to

avoid impacts. See AFI 32–7064,

Integrated Natural Resources

Management 11.

(h) EAs and accompanying FONSIs

that require the Air Force to make Clean

Air Act General Conformity

Determinations shall be submitted (five

hard copies and an electronic version)

through the MAJCOM EPF to HQ USAF/

ILEVP for SAF/MIQ approval. SAF/MIQ

signs all General Conformity

Determinations and will also sign the

companion FONSIs, when requested by

the MAJCOM (see § 989.30).

(i) In cases potentially involving a

high degree of controversy or Air forcewide concern, the MAJCOM, after

consultation with HQ USAF/ILEVP,

may request HQ USAF ESOHC review

and approval of an EA, or HQ USAF

may direct the MAJCOM to forward an

EA (five hard copies and an electronic

version) for HQ USAF ESOHC review

and approval.

(j) As a minimum, the following EAs

require MAJCOM approval because they

involve topics of special importance or

interest. Unless directed otherwise by

HQ USAF/ILEVP, the installation EPF

must forward the following types of EAs

to the MAJCOM EPF, along with an

unsigned draft FONSI: (MAJCOMs can

require other EAs receive MAJCOM

approval in addition to those types

specified here.)

(1) All EAs on non-Air Force

proposals that require an Air Force

decision, such as use of Air Force

property for highways, space ports and

joint-use proposals.

(2) EAs where mitigation to

insignificance is accomplished in lieu of

initiating an EIS (§ 989.22(c)).

(k) A few examples of actions that

normally require preparation of an EA

(except as indicated in the CATEX list)

include:
67312 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

(1) Public land withdrawals of less

than 5,000 acres.

(2) Minor mission realignments and

aircraft beddowns.

(3) New building construction on base

within developed areas.

(4) Minor modifications to Military

Operating Areas (MOAs), air-to-ground

weapons ranges, and military training

routes.

(l) The Air Force proponent will

involve other federal agencies, state,

Tribal, and local governments, and the

public in the preparation of EAs (40

CFR 1501.4(b) and 1506.6). The extent

of involvement usually coincides with

the magnitude and complexity of the

proposed action and its potential

environmental effect on the area. For

proposed actions described in

§ 989.15(e)(2), use either the scoping

process described in § 989.18 or the

public notice process in § 989.24.

§ 989.15 Finding of no significant impact.

(a) The FONSI (40 CFR § 1508.13)

briefly describes why an action would

not have a significant effect on the

environment and thus will not be the

subject of an EIS. The FONSI must

summarize the EA or, preferably, have

it attached and incorporated by

reference, and must note any other

environmental documents related to the

action.

(b) If the EA is not incorporated by

reference, the FONSI must include:

(1) Name of the action.

(2) Brief description of the action

(including alternatives considered and

the chosen alternative).

(3) Brief discussion of anticipated

environmental effects.

(4) Conclusions leading to the FONSI.

(5) All mitigation actions that will be

adopted with implementation of the

proposal (see § 989.22).

(c) Keep FONSIs as brief as possible.

Only rarely should FONSIs exceed two

typewritten pages. Stand-alone FONSIs

without an attached EA may be longer.

(d) For actions of regional or local

interest, disseminate the FONSI

according to § 989.23. The MAJCOM

and NGB are responsible for release of

FONSIs to regional offices of Federal

agencies, the state single point of

contact (SPOC), and state agencies

concurrent with local release by the

installations.

(e) The EPF must make the EA and

unsigned FONSI available to the

affected public and provide the EA and

unsigned FONSI to organizations and

individuals requesting them and to

whomever the proponent or the EPF has

reason to believe is interested in the

action, unless disclosure is precluded

for security classification reasons. Draft

EAs and unsigned draft FONSIs will be

clearly identified as drafts and

distributed via cover letter which will

explain their purpose and need. The

EPF provides a copy of the documents

without cost to organizations and

individuals requesting them. the FONSI

transmittal date (date of letter of

transmittal) to the state SPOC or other

equivalent agency is the official

notification date.

(1) Before the FONSI is signed and the

action is implemented, the EPF should

allow sufficient time to receive

comments from the public. The time

period will reflect the magnitude of the

proposed action and its potential for

controversy. The greater the magnitude

of the proposed action or its potential

for controversy, the longer the time that

must be allowed for public review.

Mandatory review periods for certain

defined actions are contained in

§ 989.15(e)(2). These are not all

inclusive but merely specific examples.

In every case where an EA and FONSI

are prepared, the proponent and EPF

must determine how much time will be

allowed for public review. In all cases,

other than classified actions, a public

review period should be the norm

unless clearly unnecessary due to the

lack of potential controversy.

(2) In the following circumstances, the

EA and unsigned FONSI are made

available for public review for at least

30 days before FONSI approval and

implementing the action (40 CFR

1501.4(e)(2)):

(i) When the proposed action is, or is

closely similar to, one that usually

requires preparation of an EIS (see

§ 989.16).

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

of action, or a precedent-setting case in

terms of its potential environmental

impacts.

(iii) If the proposed action would be

located in a floodplain or wetland.

(iv) If the action is mitigated to

insignificance in the FONSI, in lieu of

an EIS § 989.22(c)).

(v) If the proposed action is a change

to airspace use of designation.

(vi) If the proposed action would have

a disproportionately high and adverse

environmental effect on minority and

low-income populations.

(f) As a general rule, the same

organizational level that prepares the

EA also reviews and recommends the

FONSI for approval by the EPC.

MAJCOMs may decide the level of EA

approval and FONSI signature, except

as provided in § 989.14(g).

§ 989.16 Environmental impact statement.

(a) Certain classes of environmental

impacts normally require preparation of

an EIS (40 CFR part 1501.4). These

include, but are not limited to:

(1) Potential for significant

degradation of the environment.

(2) Potential for significant threat or

hazard to public health or safety.

(3) Substantial environmental

controversy concerning the significance

or nature of the environmental impact of

a proposed action.

(b) Certain other action normally, but

not always, require and EIS. These

include, but are not limited to:

(1) Public land withdrawals of over

5,000 acres (Engle Act, 43 U.S.C. 155–

158).

(2) Establishment of new air-toground weapons ranges.

(3) Site selection of new airfields.

(4) Site selection of major

installations.

(5) Development of major new

weapons systems (at decision points

that involve demonstration, validation,

production, deployment, and area or

site selection for deployment).

(6) Establishing or expanding

supersonic training areas overland

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

(7) Disposal and reuse of closing

installations.

§ 989.17 Notice of intent.

The EPF must furnish, through the

MAJCOM, to HQ USAF/ILEV the NOI

(40 CFR 1508.22) describing the

proposed action for congressional

notification and publication in the

Federal Register. The EPF, through the

host base public affairs office, will also

provide the approved NOI to

newspapers and other media in the area

potentially affected by the proposed

action. The EPF must provide copies of

the notice to the SPOC and must also

distribute it to requesting agencies,

organizations, and individuals. Along

with the draft NOI, the EPF must also

forward the completed DOPPA, through

the MAJCOM, to HQ USAF for

information.

§ 989.18 Scoping.

(a) After publication of the NOI for an

EIS, the EPF must initiate the public

scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7) to

determine the scope of issues to be

addressed and to help identify

significant environmental issues to be

analyzed in depth. Methods of scoping

range from soliciting written comments
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 67313

to conducting pubic scoping meetings

(see 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1506.6(e)). The

scoping process is an iterative, proactive process of communicating with

individual citizens, neighborhood,

community, and local leaders, public

interest groups, congressional

delegations, state, Tribal, and local

governments, and federal agencies. The

scoping process must start prior to

official public scoping meetings and

continue through to preparation of the

draft EIS. The purpose of this process is

to de-emphasize insignificant issues and

focus the scope of the environmental

analysis on significant issues (40 CFR

1500.4(g)). Additionally, scoping allows

early and more meaningful participation

by the public. The result of scoping is

that the proponent and EPF determine

the range of actions, alternatives, and

impacts to be considered in the EIS (40

CFR 1508.125). The EPF must send

plans for scoping meetings to AF/ILEV

(or ANGRC/CEV) for SAF/MIQ

concurrence no later than 30 days before

the first scoping meeting. Scoping

meeting plans are similar in content to

public hearing plans (see attachment 3).

Public scoping meetings should

generally be held at locations not on the

installation.

(b) Where it is anticipated the

proposed action and its alternatives will

affect minority and low-income

populations, special efforts shall be

made to reach these populations. This

might include special informational

meetings or notices in minority and

low-income areas concerning the regular

scoping process.

§ 989.19 Draft EIS.

(a) Preliminary draft. The EPF

supports the proponent in preparation

of a Preliminary draft EIS (PDEIS) (40

CFR 1502.9) based on the scope of

issues decided on during the scoping

process. The format of the EIS must be

in accordance with the format

recommended in the CEQ regulations

(40 CFR 1502.10 and 1502.11). The CEQ

regulations indicate that EISs normally

contain fewer than 150 pages (300 pages

for proposals of unusual complexity).

The EPF provides a sufficient number of

copies of the PDEIS to HQ USAF/ILEV

for HQ USAF ESOHC security and

policy review in each member’s area of

responsibility and to AFCEE/EC for

technical review.

(b) Review of draft EIS. After the HQ

USAF ESOHC review, the EPF assists

the proponent in making any necessary

revisions to the PDEIS and forwards it

to HQ USAF/ILEV as a draft EIS to

ensure completion of all security and

policy reviews and to certify

releasability. Once the draft EIS is

approved, HQ USAF/ILEV notifies the

EPF to print sufficient copies of the

draft EIS for distribution to

congressional delegations and interested

agencies at least seven calendar days

prior to publication of the Notice of

Availability (NOA) in the Federal

Register. After congressional

distribution, the EPF sends the draft EIS

to all others on the distribution list. HQ

USAF/ILEV then files the document

with the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA) and provides a copy to

the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense

for Environmental Security.

(c) Public review of draft EIS (40 CFR

1502.19 and 1506.6):

(1) The public comment period for the

draft EIS is at least 45 days starting from

the publication date of the NOA of the

draft EIS in the Federal Register.

USEPA publishes in the Federal

Register NOAs of EISs filed during the

preceding week. This public comment

period may be extended by the EPF. If

the draft EIS is unusually long, the EPF

may distribute a summary to the public

with an attached list of locations (such

as public libraries) where the entire

draft EIS may be reviewed. The EPF

must distribute the full draft EIS to

certain entities, for example agencies

with jurisdiction by law or agencies

with special expertise in evaluating the

environmental impacts, and anyone else

requesting the entire draft EIS (40 CFR

1502.19 and 1506.6).

(2) The EPF sponsors public hearings

on the draft EIS according to the

procedures in attachment 3. Hearings

take place no sooner than 15 days after

the Federal Register publication of the

NOA and at least 15 days before the end

of the comment period. Scheduling

hearings toward the end of the comment

period is encouraged to allow the public

to obtain and more thoroughly review

the draft EIS. The EPF must provide

hearing plans to HQ USAF/ILEV (or

ANGRC/CEV) for SAF/MIQ concurrence

no later than 30 days prior to the first

public hearing. Public hearings should

generally be held at off-base locations.

Submit requests to deviate from

procedures in attachment 3 to HQ

USAF/ILEVP for SAF/MIQ approval.

(3) Where analyses indicate that a

proposed action will potentially have a

disproportionate impact on minority or

low-income populations, the EPF

should make special efforts to ensure

that these potentially impacted

populations are brought into the review

process.

(d) Response to comments (40 CFR

1503.4). The EPF must incorporate in

the Final EIS its responses to comments

on the Draft EIS by modifying the text

and referring in the appendix to where

the comment is addressed or providing

a written explanation in the comments

section, or both. The EPF may group

comments of a similar nature together to

allow a common response and may also

respond to individuals separately.

(e) Seeking additional comments. The

EPF may, at any time during the EIS

process, seek additional public

comments, such as when there has been

a significant change in circumstances,

development of significant new

information of a relevant nature, or

where there is substantial

environmental controversy concerning

the proposed action. Significant new

information leading to public

controversy regarding the scope after the

scoping process is such a changed

circumstance. An additional public

comment period may also be necessary

after the publication of the draft EIS due

to public controversy or changes made

as the result of previous public

comments. Such periods when

additional public comments are sought

shall last for at least 30 days.

§ 989.20 Final EIS.

(a) If changes in the draft EIS are

minor or limited to factual corrections

and responses to comments, the

proponent and EPF may, with the prior

approval of SAF/MIQ, prepare a

document containing only comments on

the Draft EIS, Air Force responses, and

errata sheets of changes staffed to the

HQ USAF ESOHC for coordination.

However, the EPF must submit the draft

EIS and all of the above documents,

with a new cover sheet indicating that

it is a final EIS (40 CFR 1503.4(c)), to

HQ USAF/ILEV for filing with the EPA

(40 CFR 1506.9). If more extensive

modifications are required, the EPF

must prepare a preliminary final EIS

incorporating these modifications for

coordination within the Air Force.

Regardless of which procedure is

followed, the final EIS must be

processed in the same way as the draft

EIS, including receipt of copies of the

EIS by SAF/LLP, except that the public

need not be invited to comment during

the 30-day post-filing waiting period.

The Final EIS should be furnished to

every person, organization, or agency

that made substantive comments on the

Draft EIS or requested a copy. Although

the EPF is not required to respond to

public comments received during this

period, comments received must be

considered in determining final

decisions such as identifying the

preferred alternative, appropriate

mitigations, or if a supplemental

analysis is required.

(b) The EPF processes all necessary

supplements to EISs (40 CFR 1502.9) in
67314 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

the same way as the original Draft and

Final EIS, except that a new scoping

process is not required.

(c) If major steps to advance the

proposal have not occurred within 5

years from the date of the Final EIS

approval, reevaluation of the

documentation should be accomplished

to ensure its continued validity.

§ 989.21 Record of decision (ROD).

(a) The proponent and the EPF

prepare a draft ROD, formally staff it

through the MAJCOM EPC, to HQ

USAF/ILEV for verification of adequacy,

and forwards it to the final decisionmaker for signature. A ROD (40 CFR

1505.2) is a concise public document

stating what an agency’s decision is on

a specific action. The ROD may be

integrated into any other document

required to implement the agency’s

decision. A decision on a course of

action may not be made until 30 days

after publication of the NOA of the final

EIS in the Federal Register.

(b) The Air Force must announce the

ROD to the affected public as specified

in § 989.23, except for classified

portions. The ROD should be concise

and should explain the conclusion, the

reason for the selection, and the

alternatives considered. The ROD must

identify the course of action, whether it

is the proposed action or an alternative,

that is considered environmentally

preferable regardless of whether it is the

alternative selected for implementation.

The ROD should summarize all the

major factors the agency weighed in

making its decision, including essential

considerations of national policy.

(c) The ROD must state whether the

selected alternative employs all

practicable means to avoid, minimize,

or mitigate environmental impacts and,

if not, explain why.

§ 989.22 Mitigation.

(a) When preparing EIAP documents,

indicate clearly whether mitigation

measures (40 CFR 1508.20) must be

implemented for the alternative

selected. Discuss mitigation measures in

terms of ‘‘will’’ and ‘‘would’’ when such

measures have already been

incorporated into the proposal. Use

terms like ‘‘may’’ and ‘‘could’’ when

proposing or suggesting mitigation

measures. Both the public and the Air

Force community need to know what

commitments are being considered and

selected, and who will be responsible

for implementing, funding, and

monitoring the mitigation measures.

(b) The proponent funds and

implements mitigation measures in the

mitigation plan that is approved by the

decision-maker. Where possible and

appropriate because of amount, the

proponent should include the cost of

mitigation as a line item in the budget

for a proposed project. The proponent

must keep the EPF informed of the

status of mitigation measures when the

proponent implements the action. The

EPF monitors the progress of mitigation

implementation and reports its status,

through the MAJCOM, to HQ USAF/

ILEV when requested. Upon request, the

EPF must also provide the results of

relevant mitigation monitoring to the

public.

(c) The proponent may ‘‘mitigate to

insignificance’’ potentially significant

environmental impacts found during

preparation of an EA, in lieu of

preparing an EIS. The FONSI for the EA

must include these mitigation measures.

Such mitigations are legally binding and

must be carried out as the proponent

implements the project. If, for any

reason, the project proponent later

abandons or revises in environmentallyadverse ways the mitigation

commitments made in the FONSI, the

proponent must prepare a supplemental

EIAP document before continuing the

project. If potentially significant

environmental impacts would result

from any project revisions, the

proponent must prepare an EIS.

(d) For each FONSI or ROD

containing mitigation measures, the

proponent prepares a plan specifically

identifying each mitigation, discussing

how the proponent will execute the

mitigations, identifying who will fund

and implement the mitigations, and

stating when the proponent will

complete the mitigation. The mitigation

plan will be forwarded, through the

MAJCOM EPF to HQ USAF/ILEV for

review within 90 days from the date of

signature of the FONSI or ROD.

§ 989.23 Contractor prepared documents.

All Air Force EIAP documents belong

to and are the responsibility of the Air

Force. EIAP correspondence and

documents distributed outside of the

Air Force should generally be signed out

by Air Force personnel and documents

should reflect on the cover sheet they

are an Air Force document. Contractor

preparation information should be

contained within the document’s list of

preparers.

§ 989.24 Public notification.

Except as provided in § 989.26, public

notification is required for various

aspects of the EIAP.

(a) Activities that require public

notification include:

(1) An EA and FONSI.

(2) An EIS NOI.

(3) Public scoping meetings.

(4) Availability of the draft EIS.

(5) Public hearings on the draft EIS

(which should be included in the NOA

for the draft EIS).

(6) Availability of the final EIS.

(7) The ROD for an EIS.

(b) For actions of local concern, the

list of possible notification methods in

40 CFR 1506.6(b)(3) is only illustrative.

The EPF may use other equally effective

means of notification as a substitute for

any of the methods listed. Because

many Air Force actions are of limited

interest to persons or organizations

outside the Air Force, the EPF may limit

local notification to the SPOC, local

government representatives, and local

news media. For all actions covered

under § 989.15(e)(2), and for EIS notices,

the public affairs office must purchase

with EPF funds an advertisement in a

prominent section of the local

newspaper(s) of general circulation (not

‘‘legal’’ newspapers or ‘‘legal section’’ of

general newspapers).

(c) For the purpose of EIAP, the EPF

begins the time period of local

notification when it sends written

notification to the state SPOC or other

equivalent agency (date of letter of

notification).

§ 989.25 Base closure and realignment.

Base closure or realignment may

entail special requirements for

environmental analysis. The permanent

base closure and realignment law, 10

U.S.C. 2687, requires a report to the

Congress when an installation where at

least 300 DoD civilian personnel are

authorized to be employed is closed, or

when a realignment reduces such an

installation by at least 50 percent or

1,000 of such personnel, whichever is

less. In addition, other base closure laws

may be in effect during particular

periods. Such non-permanent closure

laws frequently contain provisions

limiting the extent of environmental

analysis required for actions taken

under them. Such provisions may also

add requirements for studies not

necessarily required by NEPA.

§ 989.26 Classified actions (40 CFR

1507.3(c)).

(a) Classification of an action for

national defense or foreign policy

purposes does not relieve the

requirement of complying with NEPA.

In classified matters, the Air Force must

prepare and make available normal

NEPA environmental analysis

documents to aid in the decision

making process; however, Air Force

staff must prepare, safeguard and

disseminate these documents according

to established procedures for protecting

classified documents. IF an EIAP
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 67315

12See footnote 1 to § 989.1.

document must be classified, the Air

Force may modify or eliminate

associated requirements for public

notice (including publication in the

Federal Register) or public involvement

in the EIAP. However, the Air Force

should obtain comments on classified

proposed actions or classified aspects of

generally unclassified actions, from

public agencies having jurisdiction by

law or special expertise, to the extent

that such review and comment is

consistent with security requirements.

Where feasible, the EPF may need to

help appropriate personnel from those

agencies obtain necessary security

clearances to gain access to documents

so they can comment on scoping or

review the documents.

(b) Where the proposed action is

classified and unavailable to the public,

the Air Force may keep the entire NEPA

process classified and protected under

the applicable procedures for the

classification level pertinent to the

particular information. At times (for

example, during weapons system

development and base closures and

realignments), certain but not all aspects

of NEPA documents may later be

declassified. In those cases, the EPF

should organize the EIAP documents, to

the extent practicable, in a way that

keeps the most sensitive classified

information (which is not expected to be

released at any early date) in a separate

annex that can remain classified; the

rest of the EIAP documents, when

declassified, will then be

comprehensible as a unit and suitable

for release to the public. Thus, the

documents will reflect, as much as

possible, the nature of the action and its

environmental impacts, as well as Air

Force compliance with NEPA

requirements.

(c) Where the proposed action is not

classified, but certain aspects of it need

to be protected by security

classification, the EPF should tailor the

EIAP for a proposed action to permit as

normal a level of public involvement as

possible, but also fully protect the

classified part of the action and

environmental analysis. In some

instances, the EPF can do this by

keeping the classified sections of the

EIAP documents in a separate, classified

annex.

(d) For § 989.26(b) actions, and NOI or

NOA will not be published in the

Federal Register until the proposed

action is declassified. For § 989.26(c)

actions, the Federal Register will run an

unclassified NOA which will advise the

public that at some time in the future

the Air Force may or will publicly

release a declassified document.

(e) The EPF similarly protects

classified aspects of FONSIs, RODs, or

other environmental documents that are

part of the EIAP for a proposed action,

such as by preparing separate classified

annexes to unclassified documents, as

necessary.

(f) Whenever a proponent believes

that EIAP documents should be kept

classified, the EPF must make a report

of the matter to SAF/MIQ, including

proposed modifications of the normal

EIAP to protect classified information.

The EPF may make such submissions at

whatever level of security classification

is needed to provide a comprehensive

understanding of the issues. SAF/MIQ,

with support from SAF/GC and other

staff elements as necessary, makes final

decisions on EIAP procedures for

classified actions.

§ 989.27 Occupational safety and health.

Assess direct and indirect impacts of

proposed actions on the safety and

health of Air Force employees and

others at a work site. The EIAP

document does not need to specify

compliance procedures. However, the

EIAP documents should discuss impacts

that require a change in work practices

to achieve an adequate level of health

and safety.

§ 989.28 Airspace and range proposals.

(a) EIAP Review. Airspace and range

proposals require review by HQ USAF/

XOO prior to public announcement and

implementation by a proponent. Unless

directed otherwise, the airspace

proponent will forward the DOPAA as

an attachment to the proposal sent to

HQ USAF/XOO. EAs and EISs prepared

as part of airspace and range proposals

will be forwarded to HQ USAF/XOO for

review at the preliminary draft and

preliminary final stages. AF/XOO will

be responsible for appropriate HQ USAF

ESOHC review.

(b) Federal Aviation Administration.

The DoD and the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) have entered into

a Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU) that outlines various airspace

responsibilities. For purposes of

compliance with NEPA, the DoD is the

‘‘lead agency’’ for all proposals initiated

by DoD, with the FAA acting as the

‘‘cooperating agency.’’ Where airspace

proposals initiated by the FAA affect

military use, the roles are reversed. The

proponent’s action officers (civil

engineering and local airspace

management) must ensure that the FAA

is fully integrated into the airspace

proposals and related EIAP from the

very beginning and that the action

officers review the FAA’s

responsibilities as a cooperating agency.

The proponent’s airspace manager

develops the preliminary airspace

proposal per appropriate FAA

handbooks and the FAA–DoD MOU.

The preliminary airspace proposal is the

basis for initial dialogue between DoD

and the FAA on the proposed action. A

close working relationship between DoD

and the FAA, through the FAA regional

Air Force representative, greatly

facilitates the airspace proposal process

and helps resolve many NEPA issues

during the EIAP.

§ 989.29 Force structure and unit move

proposals.

Unless directed otherwise, the

MAJCOM plans and programs

proponent will forward a copy of all

EAs for force structure and unit moves

to HQ USAF/ILXB for information only

at the preliminary draft and preliminary

final stages.

§ 989.30 Air quality.

Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act

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

establishes a conformity requirement for

Federal agencies which has been

implemented by regulation, 40 CFR part

93, subpart B. All EIAP documents must

address applicable conformity

requirements and the status of

compliance. Conformity applicability

analyses and determinations are

developed in parallel with EIAP

documents, but are separate and distinct

requirements and should be

documented separately. To increase the

utility of a conformity determination in

performing the EIAP, the conformity

determination should be completed

prior to the completion of the EIAP so

as to allow incorporation of the

information from the conformity

determination into the EIAP. See AFI

32–7040, Air Quality Compliance.12

§ 989.31 Pollution prevention.

The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990,

42 U.S.C. 13101(b), established a

national policy to prevent or reduce

pollution at the source, whenever

feasible. Pollution prevention

approaches should be applied to all

pollution-generating activities. The

environmental document should

analyze potential pollution that may

result from the proposed action and

alternatives and must discuss potential

pollution prevention measures when

such measures are feasible for

incorporation into the proposal or

alternatives. Where pollution cannot be

prevented, the environmental analysis

and proposed mitigation measures

should include, wherever possible,
67316 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

13See footnote 1 to § 989.1.

14See footnote 1 to § 989.1. 15See footnote 1 to § 989.1.

recycling, energy recovery, treatment,

and environmentally safe disposal

actions (see AFI 32–7080, Pollution

Prevention Program 13).

§ 989.32 Noise.

Aircraft noise data files used for

analysis during EIAP will be submitted

to HQ AFCEE for review and validation

prior to public release, and upon

completion of the EIAP for database

entry. Utilize the current NOISEMAP

computer program for air installations

and the Assessment System for Aircraft

Noise for military training routes and

military operating areas. Guidance on

standardized Air Force noise data

development and analysis procedures is

available from HQ AFCEE/EC. Develop

EIAP land use analysis relating to

aircraft noise impacts originating from

air installations following procedures in

AFI 32–70653, Air Installation

Compatible Use Zone.14 Draft EIAP

aircraft noise/land use analysis

associated with air installations will be

coordinated with the MAJCOM AICUZ

program manager.

§ 989.33 Environmental justice.

During the preparation of

environmental analyses under this

instruction, the EPF should ensure

compliance with the provisions of E.O.

12898, Federal Actions to Address

Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low-Income

Populations, and Executive

Memorandum of February 11, 1994,

regarding E.O. 12898.

§ 989.34 Special and emergency

procedures.

(a) Special procedures. During the

EIAP, unique situations may arise that

require EIAP strategies different than

those set forth in this part. These

situations may warrant modification of

the procedures in this part. EPFs should

only consider procedural deviations

when the resulting process would

benefit the Air Force and still comply

with NEPA and CEQ regulations. EPFs

must forward all requests for procedural

deviations to HQ USAF/ILEV (or

ANGRC/CEV) for review and approval

by SAF/MIQ.

(b) Emergency procedures (40 CFR

1506.11). Emergency situations do not

exempt the Air Force from complying

with NEPA, but do allow emergency

response while completing the EIAP.

Certain emergency situations may make

it necessary to take immediate action

having significant environmental

impact, without observing all the

provisions of the CEQ regulations or this

part. If possible, promptly notify HQ

USAF/ILEV, for SAF/MIQ coordination

and CEQ consultation, before

undertaking emergency actions that

would otherwise not comply with NEPA

or this part. The immediate notification

requirement does not apply where

emergency action must be taken without

delay. Coordination in this instance

must take place as soon as practicable.

§ 989.35 Reporting requirements.

(a) EAs, EISs, and mitigation measures

will be tracked at bases and MAJCOMs

through an appropriate environmental

management system.

(b) Proponents, EPFs, and public

affairs offices may utilize the world

wide web, in addition to more

traditional means, to notify the public of

availability of EAs and EISs. When

possible, allow distribution of

documents electronically. Public review

comments should be required in

writing, rather than by electronic mail.

(c) All documentation will be

disposed of according to AFMAN 37–

139, Records Disposition—Standards.15

§ 989.36 Waivers.

In order to deal with unusual

circumstances and to allow growth in

the NEPA process, SAF/MIQ may grant

waivers to those procedures contained

in this instruction not required by NEPA

or the CEQ Regulations. Such waivers

shall not be used to limit compliance

with NEPA or the CEQ Regulations but

only to substitute other, more suitable

procedures relative to the context of the

particular action. Such waivers may also

be granted on occasion to allow

experimentation in procedures in order

to allow growth in the EIAP. This

authority may not be delegated.

§ 989.37 Procedures for analysis abroad.

Procedures for analysis of

environmental actions abroad are

contained in 32 CFR part 187. That

directive provides comprehensive

policies, definitions, and procedures for

implementing E.O. 12114. For analysis

of Air Force actions abroad, 32 CFR part

187 will be followed.

§ 989.38 Requirements for analysis

abroad.

The EPF will generally perform the

same functions for analysis of actions

abroad that it performs in the United

States. In addition to the requirements

of 32 CFR part 187, the following Air

Force specific rules apply.

(a) For EAs dealing with global

commons (geographic areas beyond the

jurisdiction of the United States or any

foreign nation) HQ USAF/ILEV will

review actions that are above the

MAJCOM approval authority. In this

instance, approval authority refers to the

same approval authority that would

apply to an EA in the United States. The

EPF documents a decision not to do an

EIS.

(b) For EISs dealing with the global

commons, the EPF provides sufficient

copies to HQ USAF/ILEV for the HQ

USAF ESOHC review and AFCEE/EC

technical review. After ESOHC review,

the EPF makes a recommendation as to

whether the proposed draft EIS will be

released as a draft EIS.

(c) For environmental studies and

environmental reviews, forward, when

appropriate, environmental studies and

reviews to HQ USAF/ILEV for

coordination among appropriate federal

agencies. HQ USAF/ILEV makes

environmental studies and reviews

available to the Department of State and

other interested federal agencies, and,

on request, to the United States public,

in accordance with 32 CFR part 187. HQ

USAF/ILEV also may inform interested

foreign governments or furnish copies of

studies, in accordance with 32 CFR part

187.

Attachment 1 to Part 989—Glossary of

References, Abbreviations, Acronyms, and

Terms

References—Legislative

10 U.S.C. 2687, Base Closures and

Realignments

42 U.S.C. 4321–4347, National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969

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

Amendments of 1990

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

of 1990

43 U.S.C. 155–158, Engle Act

Executive Orders

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain

Management, May 24, 1977

Executive Order 11990, Protection of

Wetlands, May 24, 1977

Executive Order 12114, Environmental

Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions,

January 4, 1979

Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental

Review of Federal Programs, July 14, 1982

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to

Address Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low-Income Populations,

February 11, 1994

U.S. Government Agency Publications

Council on Environmental Quality

Regulations for Implementing the

Procedural Provisions of the National

Environmental Policy Act, 40 CFR parts

1500–1508

Department of Defense Directive (DoDD)

4715.1, Environmental Security

Department of Defense Directive (DoDD)

6050.7, Environmental Effects Abroad of

Major Department of Defense Actions,

March 31, 1979 (32 CFR part 187)
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 67317

Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI)

4715.9, Environmental Planning and

Analysis

DoDD 5000.1, Defense Acquisition

Department of Defense 5000.2–R, Mandatory

Procedures for Major Defense Acquisition

Programs (MDAPs) and Major Automated

Information Systems (MAIS) Acquisition

Programs, with Change 1

Air Force Publications

AFPD 32–70, Environmental Quality

AFI 32–1021, Planning and Programming of

Facility Construction Projects

AFI 32–7002, Environmental Information

Management System

AFI 32–7005, Environmental Protection

Committees

AFI 32–7040, Air Quality Compliance

AFI 32–7062, Air Force Comprehensive

Planning

AFI 32–7063, Air Installation Compatible Use

Zone Program

AFI 32–7064, Integrated Natural Resources

Management

AFI 32–7080, Pollution Prevention Program

AFI 35–202, Environmental Community

Involvement

AFI 35–205, Air Force Security and Policy

Review Program

AFMAN 37–139, Records Disposition—

Standards

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Abbreviation or acronym, and definition:

AFCEE Air Force Center for Environmental

Excellence

AFCEE/EC Air Force Center for

Environmental Excellence/

Environmental Conservation and

Planning Directorate

AFI Air Force Instruction

AFLSA/JACE Air Force Legal Services

Agency/Environmental Law and

Litigation Division

AFLSA/JAJT Air Force Legal Services

Agency/Trial Judiciary Division

AFMAN Air Force Manual

AFMOA/SG Air Force Medical Operations

Agency/Aerospace Medicine Office

AFPD Air Force Policy Directive

AFRES Air Force Reserve

ANG Air National Guard

ANGRC Air National Guard Readiness

Center

CATEX Ctegorical Exclusion

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DoD Department of Defense

DoDD Department of Defense Directive

DoDI Department of Defense Instruction

DOPAA Description of Proposed Action

and Alternatives

EA Environmental Assessment

EIAP Environmental Impact Analysis

Process

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

E.O. Executive Order

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPC Environmental Protection Committee

EPF Environmental Planning Function

ESOHC Environmental Safety and

Occupational Health Committee

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FOA Field Operating Agency

FONPA Finding of No Practicable

Alternative

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

GSA General Services Administration

HG AFMC Headquarters, Air Force Materiel

Command

HQ USAF Headquarters, United States Air

Force

HQ USAF/ILE The Air Force Civil Engineer

MAJCOM Major Command

MGM Materiel Group Manager

MOA Military Operating Area

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MSL Mean Sea Level

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

of 1969

NGB–CF National Guard Bureau Air

Directorate

NGB–JA National Guard Bureau Office of

the Staff Judge Advocate

NGB–PA National Guard Bureau Office of

Public Affairs

NOA Notice of Availability

NOI Notice of Intent

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health

Administration

PDEIS Preliminary Draft Environmental

Impact Statement

PGM Product Group Manager

REO Air Force Regional Environmental

Office

ROD Record of Decision

SAF/AQR Deputy Assistant Secretary of the

Air Force (Science, Technology, and

Engineering)

SAF/GC Air Force General Counsel

SAF/LL Air Force Office of Legislative

Liaison

SAF/MI Assistant Secretary of the Air Force

for Manpower, Reserve Affairs,

Installations, and Environment

SAF/MIQ Deputy Assistant Secretary of the

Air Force (Environment, Safety, and

Occupational Health)

SAF/PA Air Force Office of Public Affairs

SJA Staff Judge Advocate

SM Single Manager

SPD Single Program Director

SPOC Single Point of Contact

TDY Temporary Duty

U.S.C. United States Code

Terms

Note: All definitions in the CEQ

Regulations, 40 CFR part 1508, apply to this

part. In addition, the following definitions

apply:

Description of Proposed Action and

Alternatives (DOPAA)—An Air Force

document that is the framework for assessing

the environmental impact of a proposal. It

describes the purpose and need for the

action, the alternatives to be considered, and

the rationale used to arrive at the proposed

action. The DOPAA often unfolds as writing

progresses. The DOPAA can change during

the internal scoping and public scoping

process, especially as ideas and issues

become clearer, and as new information

makes changes necessary.

Environmental Impact Analysis Process

(EIAP)—The Air Force program that

implements the requirements of NEPA and

requirements for analysis of environmental

effects abroad under E.O. 12114.

Finding of No Practicable Alternative

(FONPA)—Finding contained in a FONSI or

ROD, according to Executive Orders 11988

and 11990, that explains why there are no

practicable alternatives to an action affecting

a wetland or floodplain, based on appropriate

EIAP analysis or other documentation.

Interdisciplinary—An approach to

environmental analysis involving more than

one discipline or branch of learning.

Pollution Prevention—‘‘Source reduction’’,

as defined under the Pollution Prevention

Act, and other practices that reduce or

eliminate pollutants through increased

efficiency in the use of raw materials, energy,

water, or other resources, or in the protection

of natural resources by conservation.

Proponent—Any office, unit, or activity

that proposes to initiate an action.

Scoping—A process for proposing

alternatives to be addressed and for

identifying the significant issues related to a

proposed action. Scoping includes

affirmative efforts to communicate with other

federal agencies, state, Tribal, and local

governments, and the public.

Single Manager—Any one of the Air Force

designated weapon system program

managers, that include System Program

Directors (SPDs), Product Group Managers

(PGMs), and Materiel Group Managers

(MGM).

United States—All states, commonwealths,

the District of Columbia, territories and

possessions of the United States, and all

waters and airspace subject to the territorial

jurisdiction of the United States. The

territories and possessions of the United

States include American Samoa, Guam,

Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway

Island, Navassa Island, Palmyra Island, the

Virgin Islands, and Wake Island.

Attachment 2 to Part 989—Categorical

Exclusions

A2.1. Proponent/EPF Responsibility.

Although a proposed action may qualify for

a categorical exclusion from the requirements

for environmental impact analysis under

NEPA, this exclusion does not relieve the

EPF or the proponent of responsibility for

complying with all other environmental

requirements related to the proposal,

including requirements for permits, state

regulatory agency review of plans, and so on.

A2.2. Additional Analysis. Circumstances

may arise in which usually categorically

excluded actions may have a significant

environmental impact and, therefore, may

generate a requirement for further

environmental analysis. Examples of

situations where such unique circumstances

may be present include:

A2.2.1. Actions of greater scope or size

than generally experienced for a particularly

category of action.

A2.2.2. Potential for degradation (even

though slight) of already marginal or poor

environmental conditions.

A2.2.3. Initiating a degrading influence,

activity, or effect in areas not already

significantly modified from their natural

condition.

A2.2.4. Use of unproved technology.

A2.2.5. Use of hazardous or toxic

substances that may come in contact with the

surrounding environment.
67318 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

A2.2.6. Presence of threatened or

endangered species, archaeological remains,

historical sites, or other protected resources.

A2.2.7. Proposals adversely affecting areas

of critical environmental concern, such as

prime or unique agricultural lands, wetlands,

coastal zones, wilderness areas, floodplains,

or wild and scenic river areas.

A2.2.8. Proposals with significant and

adverse environmental effects on minority

and low-income populations.

A2.3. CATEX List. Actions that are

categorically excluded in the absence of

unique circumstances are:

A2.3.1. Routine procurement of goods and

services.

A2.3.2. Routine Commissary and Exchange

operations.

A2.3.3. Routine recreational and welfare

activities.

A2.3.4. Normal personnel, fiscal or

budgeting, and administrative activities and

decisions including those involving military

and civilian personnel (for example,

recruiting, processing, paying, and records

keeping).

A2.3.5. Preparing, revising, or adopting

regulations, instructions, directives, or

guidance documents that do not, themselves,

result in an action being taken.

A2.3.6. Preparing, revising, or adopting

regulations, instructions, directives, or

guidance documents that implement

(without substantial change) the regulations,

instructions, directives, or guidance

documents from higher headquarters or other

Federal agencies with superior subject matter

jurisdiction.

A2.3.7. Continuation or resumption of preexisting actions, where there is no substantial

change in existing conditions or existing land

uses and where the actions were originally

evaluated in accordance with applicable law

and regulations, and surrounding

circumstances have not changed.

A2.3.8. Performing interior and exterior

construction within the 5-foot line of a

building without changing the land use of the

existing building.

A2.3.9. Repairing and replacing real

property installed equipment.

A2.3.10. Routine facility maintenance and

repair that does not involve disturbing

significant quantities of hazardous materials

such as asbestos and lead-based paint.

A2.3.11. Actions similar to other actions

which have been determined to have an

insignificant impact in a similar setting as

established in an EIS or an EA resulting in

a FONSI. The EPF must document

application of this CATEX on AF Form 813,

specifically identifying the previous Air

Force approved environmental document

which provides the basis for this

determination.

A2.3.12. Installing, operating, modifying,

and routinely repairing and replacing utility

and communications systems, data

processing cable, and similar electronic

equipment that use existing rights of way,

easements, distribution systems, or facilities.

A2.3.13. Installing or modifying airfield

operational equipment (such as runway

visual range equipment, visual glide path

systems, and remote transmitter or receiver

facilities) on airfield property and usually

accessible only to maintenance personnel.

A2.3.14. Installing on previously

developed land, equipment that does not

substantially alter land use (i.e., land use of

more than one acre). This includes outgrants

to private lessees for similar construction.

The EPF must document application of this

CATEX on AF Form 813.

A2.3.15. Laying-away or mothballing a

production facility or adopting a reduced

maintenance level at a closing installation

when (1) agreement on any required historic

preservation effort has been reached with the

state historic preservation officer and the

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,

and (2) no degradation in the environmental

restoration program will occur.

A2.3.16. Acquiring land and ingrants (50

acres or less) for activities otherwise subject

to CATEX. The EPF must document

application of this CATEX on AF Form 813.

A2.3.17. Transferring land, facilities, and

personal property for which the General

Services Administration (GSA) is the action

agency. Such transfers are excluded only if

there is no change in land use and GSA

complies with its NEPA requirements.

A2.3.18. Transferring administrative

control of real property within the Air Force

or to another military department or to

another Federal agency, not including GSA,

including returning public domain lands to

the Department of the Interior.

A2.3.19. Granting easements, leases,

licenses, rights of entry, and permits to use

Air Force controlled property for activities

that, if conducted by the Air Force, could be

categorically excluded in accordance with

this attachment. The EPF must document

application of this CATEX on AF Form 813.

A2.3.20. Converting in-house services to

contract services.

A2.3.21. Routine personnel decreases and

increases, including work force conversion to

either on-base contractor operation or to

military operation from contractor operation

(excluding base closure and realignment

actions which are subject to congressional

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

A2.3.22. Routine, temporary movement of

personnel, including deployments of

personnel on a temporary duty (TDY) basis

where existing facilities are used.

A2.3.23. Personnel reductions resulting

from workload adjustments, reduced

personnel funding levels, skill imbalances, or

other similar causes.

A2.3.24. Study efforts that involve no

commitment of resources other than

personnel and funding allocations.

A2.3.25. The analysis and assessment of

the natural environment without altering it

(inspections, audits, surveys, investigations).

This CATEX includes the granting of any

permits necessary for such surveys, provided

that the technology or procedure involved is

well understood and there are no adverse

environmental impacts anticipated from it.

The EPF must document application of this

CATEX on AF Form 813.

A2.3.26. Undertaking specific investigatory

activities to support remedial action

activities for purposes of cleanup of Defense

Environmental Restoration Program (DERP)

and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA) corrective action sites. These

activities include soil borings and sampling,

installation, and operation of test or

monitoring wells. This CATEX applies to

studies that assist in determining final

cleanup actions when they are conducted in

accordance with legal agreements,

administrative orders, or work plans

previously agreed to by EPA or state

regulators.

A2.3.27. Normal or routine basic and

applied scientific research confined to the

laboratory and in compliance with all

applicable safety, environmental, and natural

resource conservation laws.

A2.3.28. Routine transporting of hazardous

materials and wastes in accordance with

applicable Federal, state, interstate, and local

laws.

A2.3.29. Emergency handling and

transporting of small quantities of chemical

surety material or suspected chemical surety

material, whether or not classified as

hazardous or toxic waste, from a discovery

site to a permitted storage, treatment, or

disposal facility.

A2.3.30. Immediate responses to the

release or discharge of oil or hazardous

materials in accordance with an approved

Spill Prevention and Response Plan or Spill

Contingency Plan or that are otherwise

consistent with the requirements of the

National Contingency Plan.

A2.3.31. Relocating a small number of

aircraft to an installation with similar aircraft

that does not result in a significant increase

of total flying hours or the total number of

aircraft operations, a change in flight tracks,

or an increase in permanent personnel or

logistics support requirements at the

receiving installation. Repetitive use of this

CATEX at an installation requires further

analysis to determine there are no cumulative

impacts. The EPF must document application

of this CATEX on AF Form 813.

A2.3.32. Temporary (for less than 30 days)

increases in air operations up to 50 percent

of the typical installation aircraft operation

rate or increases of 50 operations a day,

whichever is greater. Repetitive use of this

CATEX at an installation requires further

analysis to determine there are no cumulative

impacts.

A2.3.33. Flying activities that comply with

the Federal aviation regulations, that are

dispersed over a wide area and that do not

frequently (more than once a day) pass near

the same ground points. This CATEX does

not cover regular activity on established

routes or within special use airspace.

A2.3.34. Supersonic flying operations over

land and above 30,000 feet MSL, or over

water and above 10,000 feet MSL and more

than 15 nautical miles from land.

A2.3.35. Formal requests to the FAA, or

host-nation equivalent agency, to establish or

modify special use airspace (for example,

restricted areas, warning areas, military

operating areas) and military training routes

for subsonic operations that have a base

altitude of 3,000 feet above ground level or

higher. The EPF must document application

of this CATEX on AF Form 813, which must

accompany the request to the FAA.

A2.3.36. Adopting airfield approach,

departure, and en route procedures that are

less than 3,000 feet above ground level, and

that also do not route air traffic over noise-
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 67319

sensitive areas, including residential

neighborhoods or cultural, historical, and

outdoor recreational areas. The EPF may

categorically exclude such air traffic patterns

at or greater than 3,000 feet above ground

level regardless of underlying land use.

A2.3.37. Participating in ‘‘air shows’’ and

fly-overs by Air Force aircraft at non-Air

Force public events after obtaining FAA

coordination and approval.

A2.3.38. Conducting Air Force ‘‘open

houses’’ and similar events, including air

shows, golf tournaments, home shows, and

the like, where crowds gather at an Air Force

installation, so long as crowd and traffic

control, etc., have not in the past presented

significant safety or environmental impacts.

Attachment 3 to Part 989—Procedures for

Holding Public Hearings on Draft

Environmental Impact statements (EIS)

A.3.1. General Information:

A3.1.1. The Office of the Judge Advocate

General, through the Air Force Legal Services

Agency/Trial Judiciary Division (AFLSA/

JAJT) and its field organization, is

responsible for conducting public hearings

and assuring verbatim transcripts are

accomplished.

A3.1.2. The EPF, with proponent, AFLSA/

JAJT, and Public Affairs support, establishes

the date and location, arranges for hiring the

court reporter, funds temporary duty costs for

the hearing officer, makes logistical

arrangements (for example, publishing

notices, arranging for press coverage,

obtaining tables and chairs, etc.).

A3.1.3. The procedures outlined below

have proven themselves through many prior

applications. However, there may be rare

instances when circumstances warrant

conducting public hearings under a different

format, e.g., public/town meeting,

information booths, third party moderator,

etc. In these cases, forward a request with

justification to deviate from these procedures

to USAF/ILEVP for SAF/MIQ approval.

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

A3.2.1. Public Affairs officers:

A3.2.1.1. Announce public hearings and

assemble a mailing list of individuals to be

invited.

A3.2.1.2. Distribute announcements of a

hearing to all interested individuals and

agencies, including the print and electronic

media.

A3.2.1.3. Place a newspaper display

advertisement announcing the time and place

of the hearing as well as other pertinent

particulars.

A3.2.1.4. Distribute the notice in a timely

manner so it will reach recipients or be

published at least 15 days before the hearing

date. Distribute notices fewer than 15 days

before the hearing date when you have

substantial justification and if the

justification for a shortened notice period

appears in the notice.

A3.2.1.5. Develop and distribute news

release.

A3.2.2. If an action has effects of national

concern, publish notices in the Federal

Register and mail notices to national

organizations that have an interest in the

matter.

A3.2.2.1. Because of the longer lead time

required by the Federal Register, send out

notices for publication in the Federal

Register to arrive at HQ USAF/CEV no later

than 30 days before the hearing date.

A3.2.3. The notice should include:

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

the hearing.

A3.2.3.2. A description of the general

format of the hearing.

A3.2.3.3. The name and telephone number

of a person to contact for more information.

A3.2.3.4. A suggestion that speakers submit

(in writing or by return call) their intention

to participate, with an indication of which

environmental impact (or impacts) they wish

to address.

A3.2.3.5. Any limitation on the length of

oral statements.

A3.2.3.6. A suggestion that speakers submit

statements of considerable length in writing.

A3.2.3.7. A summary of the proposed

action.

A3.2.3.8. The location where the Draft EIS

and any appendices are available for

examination.

A.3.3. Availability of the Draft EIS to the

Public. The EPF makes copies of the Draft

EIS available to the public at an Air Force

installation and other reasonably accessible

place in the vicinity of the proposed action

and public hearing (e.g., public library).

A3.4. Place of the Hearing. The EPF

arranges to hold the hearing at a time and

place and in an area readily accessible to

military and civilian organizations and

individuals interested in the proposed action.

Generally, the EPF should arrange to hold the

hearing in an off-base civilian facility, which

is more accessible to the public.

A3.5. Hearing Officer:

A3.5.1. The AFLSA/JAJT selects a military

trial judge to preside over hearings. The

hearing officer does not need to have

personal knowledge of the project, other than

familiarity with the Draft EIS. In no event

should the hearing officer be a judge

advocate from the proponent or subordinate

command, be assigned to the same

installation with which the hearing is

concerned, or have participated personally in

the development of the project, or have

rendered legal advice or assistance with

respect to it (or be expected to do so in the

future). The principal qualification of the

hearing officer should be the ability to

conduct a hearing as an impartial participant.

A3.5.2. The primary duties of the hearing

officer are to make sure that the hearing is

orderly, is recorded, and that interested

parties have a reasonable opportunity to

speak. The presiding officer should direct the

speakers’ attention to the purpose of the

hearing, which is to consider the

environmental impacts of the proposed

project. Speakers should have a time limit to

ensure maximum public input to the

decision-maker.

A3.6. Record of the Hearing. The EIS

preparation team must make sure a verbatim

transcribed record of the hearing is prepared,

including all stated positions, all questions,

and all responses. The EIS preparation team

should append all written submissions that

parties provide to the hearing officer during

the hearing to the record as attachments. The

EIS preparation team should also append a

list of persons who spoke at the hearing and

submitted written comments and a list of the

organizations or interests they represent with

addresses. The EIS preparation team must

make sure a verbatim transcript of the

hearing is provided to the EPF for inclusion

as an appendix to the Final EIS. The officer

should also ensure that all persons who

request a copy of the transcript get a copy

when it is completed. Copying charges are

determined according to 40 CFR 1506.6(f).

A3.7. Hearing Format. Use the format

outlined below as a general guideline for

conducting a hearing. Hearing officers should

tailor the format to meet the hearing

objectives. These objectives provide

information to the public, record opinions of

interested persons on environmental impacts

of the proposed action, and set out

alternatives for improving the EIS and for

later consideration.

A3.7.1. Record of Attendees. The hearing

officer should make a list of all persons who

wish to speak at the hearing to help the

hearing officer in calling on these

individuals, to ensure an accurate transcript

of the hearing, and to enable the officer to

send a copy of the Final EIS (40 CFR 1502.19)

to any person, organization, or agency that

provided substantive comments at the

hearing. The hearing officer should assign

assistants to the entrance of the hearing room

to provide cards on which individuals can

voluntarily write their names, addresses,

telephone numbers, organizations they

represent, and titles; whether they desire to

make a statement at the hearing; and what

environmental area(s) they wish to address.

The hearing officer can then use the cards to

call on individuals who desire to make

statements. However, the hearing officer will

not deny entry to the hearing or the right to

speak to people who decline to submit this

information on cards.

A3.7.2. Introductory Remarks. The hearing

officer should first introduce himself or

herself and the EIS preparation team. Then

the hearing officer should make a brief

statement on the purpose of the hearing and

give the general ground rules on how it will

be conducted. This is the proper time to

welcome any dignitaries who are present.

The hearing officer should explain that he or

she does not make any recommendation or

decision on whether the proposed project

should be continued, modified, or abandoned

or how the EIS should be prepared.

A3.7.3. Explanation of the Proposed

Action. The Air Force EIS preparation team

representative should next explain the

proposed action, the alternatives, the

potential environmental consequences, and

the EIAP.

A3.7.4. Questions by Attendees. After the

EIS team representative explains the

proposed action, alternatives, and

consequences, the hearing officer should give

attendees a chance to ask questions to clarify

points they may not have understood. The

EIS preparation team may have to reply in

writing, at a later date, to some of the

questions. While the Air Force EIS

preparation team should be as responsive as

possible in answering questions about the

proposal, they should not become involved
67320 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

in debate the questioners over the merits of

the proposed action. Cross-examination of

speakers, either those of the Air Force or the

public, is not the purpose of an informal

hearing. If necessary, the hearing officer may

limit questioning or conduct portions of the

hearing to ensure proper lines of inquiry.

However, the hearing officer should include

all questions in the hearing record.

A3.7.5. Statement of Attendees. The

hearing officer must give the persons

attending the hearing a chance to present oral

or written statements. The hearing officer

should be sure the recorder has the name and

address of each person who submits an oral

or written statement. The officer should also

permit the attendees to submit written

statements within a reasonable time, usually

two weeks, following the hearing. The officer

should allot a reasonable length of time at the

hearing for receiving oral statements. The

officer may waive any announced time limit

at his or her discretion. The hearing officer

may allow those who have not previously

indicated a desire to speak to identify

themselves and be recognized only after

those who have previously indicated their

intentions to speak have spoken.

A3.7.6 Ending or Extending a Hearing. The

hearing officer has the power to end the

hearing if the hearing becomes disorderly, if

the speakers become repetitive, or for other

good cause. In any such case, the hearing

officer must make a statement for the record

on the reasons for terminating the hearing.

The hearing officer may also extend the

hearing beyond the originally announced

date and time. The officer should announce

the extension to a later date or time during

the hearing and prior to the hearing if

possible.

A3.8. Adjourning the Hearing. After all

persons have had a chance to speak, when

the hearing has culled a representative view

of public opinion, or when the time set for

the hearing and any reasonable extension of

time has ended, the hearing officer adjourns

the hearing. In certain circumstances (for

example, if the hearing officer believes it is

likely that some participants will introduce

new and relevant information), the hearing

officer may justify scheduling an additional,

separate hearing session. if the hearing officer

makes the decision to hold another hearing

while presiding over the original hearing he

or she should announce that another public

hearing will be scheduled or is under

consideration. The officer gives notice of a

decision to continue these hearings in

essentially the same way he or she

announced the original hearing, time

permitting. The Public Affairs officer

provides the required public notices and

directs notices to interested parties in

coordination with the hearing officer.

Because of lead time constraints, SAF/MIQ

may waive Federal Register notice

requirements or advertisements in local

publications. At the conclusion of the

hearing, the hearing officer should inform the

attendees of the deadline (usually 2 weeks)

to submit additional written remarks in the

hearing record. The officer should also notify

attendees of the deadline for the commenting

period of the Draft EIS.

Barbara A. Carmichael,

Alternate Air Force Federal Register Liaison

Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–33457 Filed 12–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3910–01–M

ARCHITECTURAL AND

TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS

COMPLIANCE BOARD

36 CFR Parts 1190 and 1191

Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor

Developed Areas; Meeting of

Regulatory Negotiation Committee

AGENCY: Architectural and

Transportation Barriers Compliance

Board.

ACTION: Regulatory negotiation

committee meeting.

SUMMARY: The Architectural and

Transportation Barriers Compliance

Board (Access Board) has established a

regulatory negotiation committee to

develop a proposed rule on accessibility

guidelines for newly constructed and

altered outdoor developed areas covered

by the Americans with Disabilities Act

and the Architectural Barriers Act. This

document announces the dates, times,

and location of the next meeting of the

committee, which is open to the public.

DATES: The committee will meet on:

Saturday, January 31, 1998, 2:00 p.m. to

6:00 p.m.; Sunday, February 1, 1998,

8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and Monday,

February 2, 1998, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The committee will meet at

the Princess Hotel, 1404 West Vacation

Road, San Diego, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Greenwell, Office of Technical

and Information Services, Architectural

and Transportation Barriers Compliance

Board, 1331 F Street, NW., suite 1000,

Washington, DC, 20004–1111.

Telephone number (202) 272–5434

extension 34 (Voice); (202) 272–5449

(TTY). This document is available in

alternate formats (cassette tape, braille,

large print, or computer disc) upon

request. This document is also available

on the Board’s web site (http://

www.access-board.gov/rules/

outdoor.htm).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In June

1997, the Access Board established a

regulatory negotiation committee to

develop a proposed rule on accessibility

guidelines for newly constructed and

altered outdoor developed areas covered

by the Americans with Disabilities Act

and the Architectural Barriers Act. (62

FR 30546, June 4, 1997). The committee

will hold its next meeting on the dates

and at the location announced above.

The meeting is open to the public. The

meeting site is accessible to individuals

with disabilities. Individuals with

hearing impairments who require sign

language interpreters should contact

Peggy Greenwell by January 15, 1998, by

calling (202) 272–5434 extension 34

(voice) or (202) 272–5449 (TTY).

Lawrence W. Roffee,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 97–33625 Filed 12–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8150–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA–203–0062; FRL–5940–7]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans; California;

Ventura County Air Pollution Control

District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

a state implementation plan (SIP)

revision submitted by the State of

California relating to control measures

for attaining the ozone national ambient

air quality standards (NAAQS) in the

Ventura County nonattainment area.

The submittal revises control measure

adoption schedules in the 1994 ozone

SIP for Ventura County. EPA is

proposing to approve the SIP revision

under provisions of the Clean Air Act

(CAA or the Act) regarding EPA action

on SIP submittals, SIPs for national

primary and secondary ambient air

quality standards, and plan

requirements for nonattainment areas.

DATES: Written comments on this

proposal must be received by January

23, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to the USEPA contact listed

below.

The rulemaking docket for this notice

may be inspected and copied at the

following location during normal

business hours. A reasonable fee may be

charged for copying parts of the docket.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, Air Division, Air Planning

Office 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901

Copies of the SIP materials are also

available for inspection at the addresses

listed below: