This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

2381 

Vol. 80, No. 11 

Friday, January 16, 2015 

GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM 

RESTORATION COUNCIL 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Implementing Procedures and 

Categorical Exclusions 

AGENCY: Gulf Coast Ecosystem 

Restoration Council. 

ACTION: Proposed procedure; request for 

public comment. 

SUMMARY: The Gulf Coast Ecosystem 

Restoration Council (Council) requests 

public comment on proposed 

procedures for implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). The Council also requests 

public comment on proposed 

categorical exclusions of actions the 

Council has determined do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment and, thus, should be 

categorically excluded from the 

requirement to prepare an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) or 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

under NEPA. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed 

NEPA procedures and categorical 

exclusions must be received by 

February 17, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted through one of these 

methods: 

Electronic Submission of Comments: 

Interested persons may submit 

comments electronically through the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. Electronic 

submission of comments allows the 

commenter maximum time to prepare 

and submit a comment, ensures timely 

receipt, and enables the Council to make 

them available to the public. 

Mail: Send to Gulf Coast Ecosystem 

Restoration Council, Attention John 

Ettinger, 500 Poydras Street, Suite 1117, 

New Orleans, LA 70130. 

Email: Send to nepaprocedures@

restorethegulf.gov. 

In general, the Council will make 

such comments available for public 

inspection and copying on its Web site, 

http://www.restorethegulf.gov without 

change, including any business or 

personal information provided, such as 

names, addresses, email addresses, or 

telephone numbers. All comments 

received, including attachments and 

other supporting materials, will be part 

of the public record and subject to 

public disclosure. You should only 

submit information that you wish to 

make publicly available. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Please send questions by email to 

nepaprocedures@restorethegulf.gov, or 

contact John Ettinger, (504) 444–3522. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On July 6, 2012, the President signed 

the Resources and Ecosystems 

Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, 

and Revived Economies of the Gulf 

Coast States Act of 2012 (‘‘RESTORE 

Act’’ or ‘‘Act’’) into law. The Act 

establishes a new trust fund in the 

Treasury of the United States, known as 

the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund 

(Trust Fund). Eighty percent of the 

administrative and civil penalties paid 

after July 6, 2012, under the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act in 

connection with the DEEPWATER 

HORIZON Oil Spill will be deposited 

into the Trust Fund. Under terms 

described in the Act, amounts in the 

Trust Fund will be available for projects 

and programs that restore and protect 

the environment and economy of the 

Gulf Coast region. 

The Act is focused on the Gulf Coast 

region and has five components. The 

Direct Component sets aside 35 percent 

of the penalties paid into the Trust Fund 

for eligible activities proposed by the 

five Gulf Coast states—Alabama, 

Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and 

Texas—including local governments 

within Florida and Louisiana. The 

Council-Selected Restoration 

Component sets aside 30 percent of the 

penalties, plus half of all interest earned 

on Trust Fund investments, to be 

managed by a new independent entity 

in the Federal government called the 

Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration 

Council (Council). The Council is 

comprised of members from six Federal 

agencies or departments and the five 

Gulf Coast states. One of the Federal 

members, the Secretary of Commerce, 

currently serves as Chairperson of the 

Council. The Council will direct 

Council-Selected Restoration 

Component funds to projects and 

programs for the restoration of the Gulf 

Coast region, pursuant to an Initial 

Comprehensive Plan that has been 

developed by the Council. Under the 

Spill Impact Component, the Gulf Coast 

states can use an additional 30 percent 

of penalties in the Trust Fund for 

eligible activities pursuant to plans 

developed by the states and approved 

by the Council. The remaining five 

percent of penalties, plus one-half of all 

interest earned on Trust Fund 

investments, will be divided equally 

between the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

RESTORE Act Science Program and a 

Centers of Excellence Research Grants 

Program. 

II. This Proposed Procedure 

This proposed procedure, upon 

enactment, would establish the 

Council’s policy and procedures to 

ensure compliance with NEPA and 

Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) regulations for implementing 

NEPA. Each Federal agency is required 

to develop NEPA procedures as a 

supplement to the CEQ regulations. The 

Council’s major responsibilities are set 

out in greater detail in the RESTORE 

Act, and responsibilities relative to the 

administration of Council-Selected 

Restoration Component are further 

described below. The Council continues 

to deliberate policies and procedures 

relative to implementation of the Spill 

Impact Component. Information on such 

matters will be available at a later date. 

The NEPA procedures proposed 

below are applicable to Council actions. 

Activities funded pursuant to any 

component of the Act may also be 

subject to an environmental review 

under NEPA in instances where there is 

a separate Federal action. For example, 

a restoration project funded under the 

Direct Component would be subject to 

NEPA if it required a permit to fill 

wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act. 

Council-Selected Restoration 

Component 

The Act provides 30 percent of 

penalties deposited into the Trust Fund 

to the Council, plus one-half of the 

interest earned on Trust Fund 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2382 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Notices 

investments, to carry out a 

Comprehensive Plan. In August 2013, 

the Council issued the Initial 

Comprehensive Plan for Restoring the 

Gulf Coast’s ecosystem and economy. 

This Initial Comprehensive Plan 

provides a framework to implement a 

coordinated region-wide restoration 

effort to restore, protect, and revitalize 

the Gulf Coast. The Initial 

Comprehensive Plan was accompanied 

by a Programmatic Environmental 

Assessment. 

Pursuant to the Act, the Council will 

develop a ‘‘Funded Priority List’’ (or 

FPL) of projects and programs to be 

carried out to advance the goals and 

objectives set forth in the Initial 

Comprehensive Plan, subject to 

available funding. The Council will 

periodically update the Initial 

Comprehensive Plan and the FPL, in 

accordance with the Act. 

The FPL and subsequent updates will 

consist of a list of projects and programs 

which the Council intends to fund for 

planning, technical assistance, or 

implementation purposes. The Council 

anticipates that once the full amount 

ultimately to be paid into the Trust 

Fund is known, future amendments to 

the FPL will include significantly larger 

projects and project lists that reflect the 

full amount available to be spent for 

restoration activities. A Council 

commitment to fund implementation of 

a project or program in the FPL is a 

Federal action which requires the 

appropriate level of NEPA review. 

Examples of NEPA compliance include 

application of a categorical exclusion, 

adoption of existing NEPA 

documentation, or preparation of new 

NEPA documentation, as warranted. 

The FPL may commit planning and 

technical assistance funds for activities 

such as engineering, design, and 

environmental compliance for projects 

and programs. According to the Initial 

Comprehensive Plan, a Council 

commitment of planning or technical 

assistance funds for a project or program 

in an FPL does not necessarily 

guarantee that the Council will 

subsequently fund implementation of 

the project or program. Should the 

Council subsequently decide to fund 

implementation of the particular project 

or program, it will ensure the 

appropriate level of NEPA compliance 

at that time. 

In developing and updating the FPL, 

the Council will seek to ensure that the 

projects and programs contained therein 

reflect a comprehensive approach for 

Gulf restoration, consistent with the Act 

and the Initial Comprehensive Plan. To 

that end, the Council will build upon 

existing restoration plans and strategies, 

engage the public, ensure the FPL is 

based on sound science, and assess the 

cumulative environmental impacts of 

projects and programs contained in the 

FPL, as appropriate. 

There has been extensive Gulf coast 

restoration planning conducted at 

Federal, state, and local levels. This 

includes the Gulf Coast Ecosystem 

Restoration Task Force Strategy (Task 

Force Strategy), as well as state-level 

efforts, such as the Louisiana 

Comprehensive Master Plan for a 

Sustainable Coast and the Mississippi 

Coastal Improvement Program (MsCIP). 

In addition, watershed-level planning 

efforts have been conducted by Gulfbased National Estuary Programs and 

other stakeholder groups. The Council 

intends to build upon these planning 

efforts in developing the initial FPL and 

subsequent updates. 

The Council will engage the public in 

the development of the FPL and 

subsequent updates. Public engagement 

conducted by the Council members 

prior to development of the draft FPL 

will be considered in the Council’s 

project review and selection process. 

The public will also have an 

opportunity to review and comment on 

the draft FPL. Where applicable, the 

NEPA processes for specific projects 

and programs in the FPL will also 

provide opportunities for public input. 

The public would have the opportunity 

to provide input during the scoping of 

Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) 

as well as an opportunity to review and 

comment on draft EISs. Under some 

circumstances, as detailed in the draft 

NEPA procedures, the public would 

also have an opportunity to review and 

comment on draft Environmental 

Assessments (EAs). 

Independent scientific review of the 

projects and programs nominated for 

inclusion in the FPL will help ensure 

that all funded activities are based on 

the best available science. The Council 

anticipates that a number of the projects 

and programs nominated for inclusion 

in the FPL will be derived from existing 

restoration plans, which have already 

undergone independent scientific 

review. In such cases, the Council’s 

independent scientific review process 

would complement the scientific 

foundation established within the 

respective planning process. 

The Council will ensure that the 

evaluations of projects and programs in 

the initial FPL and subsequent updates 

effectively assess potential cumulative 

impacts in accordance with NEPA, 

which requires a Federal agency to 

consider the incremental environmental 

impacts of the proposed action when 

combined with relevant past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. The cumulative impact 

assessments will generally be tailored to 

the area of influence of the given 

activity. For example, a project with a 

large area of influence (such as a river 

diversion) would have a 

commensurately broader assessment of 

cumulative effects, while one with a 

limited area of influence (such as a 

small vegetative planting project) would 

have a more limited assessment of 

potential cumulative effects. To the 

extent appropriate, the assessment of 

cumulative impacts will draw upon 

existing information in relevant ongoing 

and completed NEPA documents, 

including the Initial Comprehensive 

Plan Programmatic EA, the Deepwater 

Horizon Natural Resources Damage 

Assessment Early Restoration 

Programmatic EIS, the Louisiana Coastal 

Area Ecosystem Restoration Plan 

Programmatic EIS, the MsCIP 

Programmatic EIS, and others. Among 

other potential benefits, effective 

cumulative impact assessments can help 

ensure that Council decisions regarding 

specific restoration projects are 

informed with a broader understanding 

of the relationship between such 

projects and other restoration activities, 

whether supported by the RESTORE Act 

or another funding source. 

III. Classification 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) 

As an independent Federal entity that 

is composed of, in part, six Federal 

agencies, including the Departments of 

Agriculture, the Army, Commerce, and 

the Interior, the Department in which 

the Coast Guard is operating, and the 

Environmental Protection Agency, the 

requirements of Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 are inapplicable to these 

proposed procedures. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

requires the Council to consider 

whether a document would have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

‘‘Small entities’’ include small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

that are independently owned and 

operated and are not dominant in their 

fields, and governmental jurisdictions 

with populations under 50,000. The 

proposed NEPA procedures would 

apply to Council actions and applicants 

for funding under the Council-Selected 

Restoration Component of the Act. 

These applicants are limited by the Act 

to the Federal and state members of the 

Council. Therefore, the Council hereby 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Notices 2383 

certifies that these proposed procedures 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

the Council must have approval from 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) before collecting information 

from the public (such as forms, general 

questionnaires, surveys, instructions, 

and other types of collections). 

According to these proposed NEPA 

procedures, applicants for funding 

under the Council-Selected Restoration 

Component could be required to prepare 

and submit NEPA documentation to the 

Council prior to a decision on whether 

to fund a given activity. These 

applicants would be limited to the 

Federal and state members of the 

Council and NEPA submissions would 

be unique to each individual project or 

program selected for inclusion in the 

FPL. These proposed procedures would 

not lead to the collection of information. 

On this basis, the Council has 

determined that these proposed 

procedures would not create any new 

information collection requirements for 

the public. 

Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175 requires the 

Council to engage in regular and 

meaningful consultation and 

collaboration with tribal officials in the 

development of Federal policies that 

have tribal implications. ‘‘Policies that 

have tribal implications’’ refers to 

regulations, legislative comments or 

proposed legislation, and other policy 

statements or actions that have 

substantial direct effects on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes. 

These proposed NEPA procedures apply 

to the Council and its members, insofar 

as such members choose to apply for 

funding under the Council-Selected 

Restoration Component of the Act. 

Among other policies, these proposed 

NEPA procedures establish Council 

policy regarding coordination and 

consultation with tribal governments in 

NEPA processes conducted under the 

Council-Selected Restoration 

Component, where applicable. These 

proposed NEPA procedures do not in 

any way alter the right of tribal 

governments to engage in NEPA 

processes conducted by the Council. 

These proposed NEPA procedures are 

intended to foster effective 

communication with tribal governments 

in that regard. The Council has therefore 

determined that these proposed NEPA 

procedures would not have tribal 

implications as the term is used 

pursuant to Executive Order 13175. 

Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

Executive Order 12898 directs Federal 

agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and/or low-income 

populations. The Council’s proposed 

NEPA procedures specifically call for 

the consideration of potential 

environmental justice issues in the 

development of Environmental Impact 

Statements, and reference the need to 

address Executive Order 12898, where 

applicable. The Council has therefore 

determined that these proposed NEPA 

procedures do not raise any 

environmental justice concerns. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The Council on Environmental 

Quality regulations do not direct 

agencies to prepare a NEPA analysis or 

document before establishing Agency 

procedures (such as those proposed 

here) that supplement the CEQ 

regulations for implementing NEPA. 

Agencies are required to adopt NEPA 

procedures that establish specific 

criteria for, and identification of, three 

classes of actions: those that normally 

require preparation of an environmental 

impact statement; those that normally 

require preparation of an environmental 

assessment; and those that are 

categorically excluded from further 

NEPA review (40 CFR 1507.3(b)). 

Categorical exclusions are one part of 

those agency procedures, and therefore 

establishing categorical exclusions does 

not require preparation of a NEPA 

analysis or document. Sierra Club v. 

Bosworth, 510 F.3d 1016, 1025–26 (9th 

Cir. 2007); Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S. 

Forest Service, 230 F.3d 947, 954–55 

(7th Cir. 2000). Agency NEPA 

procedures are procedural guidance to 

assist agencies in the fulfillment of 

agency responsibilities under NEPA, but 

are not the agency’s final determination 

of what level of NEPA analysis is 

required for a particular proposed 

action. The requirements for 

establishing agency NEPA procedures 

are set forth at 40 CFR 1505.1 and 

1507.3. 

Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration 

Council’s Procedures for Considering 

Environmental Impacts 

Table of Contents 

Sec. 1. Purpose 

Sec. 2. Authority 

Sec. 3. Definitions and Acronyms 

Sec. 4. Actions Covered 

Sec. 5. Timing 

Sec. 6. Coordinating NEPA on Joint Actions 

Sec. 7. Applicants for Funding 

Sec. 8. Consultants 

Sec. 9. Public Involvement for Environmental 

Impact Statements 

Sec. 10. Environmental Assessment 

Sec. 11. Finding of No Significant Impact 

Sec. 12. Environmental Impact Statement 

Sec. 13. Contents of an Environmental Impact 

Statement 

Sec. 14. Programmatic Environmental Review 

Sec. 15. Record of Decision 

Sec. 16. Effective Date 

Sec. 1. Purpose 

This document establishes the Gulf 

Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council’s 

(Council) policy and procedures 

(Procedures) to ensure compliance with 

the requirements set forth in the Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations 40 CFR parts 1500 through 

1508 implementing the provisions of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347. These 

procedures also address compliance 

with other related statutes and 

directives. More specifically, these 

Procedures implement the CEQ NEPA 

regulations requirement that agencies 

adopt supplemental NEPA procedures. 

Sec. 2. Authority 

NEPA and its implementing 

regulations establish a broad national 

policy to protect and enhance the 

quality of the human environment, and 

develop programs and measures to meet 

national environmental goals. Section 

101 of NEPA sets forth Federal policies 

and goals to encourage productive 

harmony between people and their 

environment. Section 102(2) provides 

specific direction to Federal agencies, 

described as ‘‘action-forcing’’ in the 

CEQ regulations, to further the goals of 

NEPA. These major provisions include 

requirements to use a systematic, 

interdisciplinary approach to planning 

and decision-making (section 102(2)(A)) 

and develop methods and procedures to 

ensure appropriate consideration of 

environmental values (section 

102(2)(B)). Section 102(2)(C) requires 

preparation of a detailed statement for 

major Federal actions significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2384 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Notices 

environment that analyzes the impact of 

and alternatives to the action. 

Policy. It is the Council’s policy to: 

(a) Comply with NEPA and other 

environmental laws, regulations, 

policies, and Executive Orders 

applicable to Council actions; 

(b) Seek and develop partnerships and 

cooperative arrangements with other 

Federal, tribal, state, and local 

governments early in the NEPA process 

to help ensure efficient regulatory 

review of Council actions; 

(c) Ensure that applicable NEPA 

compliance and its documentation 

includes public involvement 

appropriate to the action being proposed 

and its potential impacts; 

(d) Interpret and administer Federal 

laws, regulations, Executive Orders, and 

policies in accordance with the policies 

set forth pursuant to NEPA, to the 

fullest extent possible; 

(e) Consider the potential 

environmental impacts of Council 

actions as early in the planning process 

as possible; and 

(f) Consult, coordinate with, and 

consider policies, procedures, and 

activities of other Federal agencies, as 

well as tribal, state, and local 

governments. 

Applicability. These Procedures are 

intended to supplement CEQ’s NEPA 

regulations, which also apply to 

proposed actions by the Council and are 

incorporated herein by reference. 

Depending on the nature of the 

proposed action and its potential 

impacts on the human environment, 

Council actions may be categorically 

excluded (CE) from additional NEPA 

review by the Council, or require the 

preparation of an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) or an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS). An EA results 

in a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) or a decision to prepare an EIS. 

The Council need not prepare an EA 

prior to an EIS; rather, if the Council 

believes the proposed action may 

significantly affect the quality of the 

human environment, it may proceed 

directly to preparation of an EIS. An 

applicant for funding may assist the 

Council, either by preparing the 

appropriate level of environmental 

analysis or hiring an environmental 

consultant to do so, as appropriate, for 

proposed actions. These Procedures will 

apply to the fullest extent practicable to 

proposed Council actions and 

environmental documents begun but not 

completed before these Procedures take 

effect. They do not apply, however, to 

decisions made and draft or final 

environmental documents completed 

prior to the date on which these 

Procedures take effect. 

Sec. 3. Definitions and Acronyms 

The definitions contained within 

CEQ’s regulation at 40 CFR part 1508 

apply to these Procedures. Additional 

and expanded definitions and acronyms 

are as follows: 

(a) ‘‘Council’’ means the Gulf Coast 

Ecosystem Restoration Council. 

(b) ‘‘Council Action’’ is an action 

taken by the Council potentially subject 

to NEPA. Council Actions may be 

wholly or partially funded by the 

Council. Council Actions include but 

are not limited to awarding grants, 

contracts, purchases, leases, 

construction, research activities, 

rulemakings, and amendment or 

revision of a Comprehensive Plan. 

(c) ‘‘CE’’ means Categorical Exclusion. 

(d) ‘‘CEQ’’ means the Council on 

Environmental Quality. 

(e) ‘‘EA’’ means an Environmental 

Assessment. 

(f) ‘‘EIS’’ means an Environmental 

Impact Statement. 

(g) ‘‘EPA’’ means the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(h) ‘‘Executive Director’’ means the 

Executive Director of the Gulf Coast 

Ecosystem Restoration Council. 

(i) ‘‘FONSI’’ means a Finding of No 

Significant Impact. 

(j) ‘‘NEPA Documents’’ are any of the 

following: 

(1) Documentation associated with 

use of a CE; 

(2) Environmental Assessment; 

(3) Finding of No Significant Impact; 

(4) Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS; 

(5) Draft, Final, or Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement; 

(6) Record of Decision; and 

(7) Notice of Intent to Adopt an EA or 

EIS. 

(k) ‘‘Project Sponsor’’ or ‘‘Applicant’’ 

is the entity that seeks Council Action 

to fund a project or program. 

(l) ‘‘Record of Decision’’ or ‘‘ROD’’, in 

cases requiring an EIS, is the decision 

and public document based on the EIS 

(see 40 CFR 1505.2). 

(m) ‘‘Responsible Official’’ is the 

person delegated authority by the 

Council to make recommendations to 

the Council (or the Council’s designated 

decision-maker) regarding compliance 

with NEPA and in some cases to 

implement decisions pertaining to 

NEPA (as described in these Procedures 

or in the Council’s Standard Operating 

Procedures). 

Sec. 4. Actions Covered 

(a) General Rule. The requirements of 

sections 5 through 15 of these 

Procedures apply to Council Actions 

that are determined to be Federal 

actions in accordance with this section. 

(b) Federal Actions. For purposes of 

these Procedures, a Federal action is any 

Council Action: 

(1) With effects that may be major; 

and 

(2) That is potentially subject to the 

Federal control and responsibility of the 

Council. As described in the CEQ 

regulations, the term ‘‘major’’ does not 

have a meaning independent of the term 

‘‘significantly’’ (see 40 CFR 1508.18). 

(c) Actions Categorically Excluded. 

The Council has determined that certain 

categories of actions are eligible to use 

a CE for compliance with NEPA, as they 

do not have a significant impact 

individually or cumulatively on the 

quality of the human environment. A 

proposal is categorically excluded if the 

Council determines the following: 

(1) The proposed action fits within a 

class of actions that is listed below; 

(2) There are no extraordinary 

circumstances indicating the action may 

have a significant effect (see subsection 

(e) of this Section); and 

(3) The proposal has not been 

segmented to meet the definition of a 

CE. 

(d) The following categories of 

Council Actions are categorically 

excluded from further NEPA review in 

an EA or EIS: 

(1) Administrative and Routine Office 

Activities: 

i. Administrative procurements (e.g., 

for general supplies) and contracts for 

personnel services. 

ii. Routine fiscal and administrative 

activities involving personnel (e.g., 

recruiting, hiring, detailing, processing, 

paying, supervising, and 

recordkeeping). 

iii. Routine procurement of goods and 

services to support operations and 

infrastructure, including routine utility 

services and contracts, conducted in 

accordance with applicable 

procurement regulations, Executive 

Orders, and policies. 

iv. Routine administrative office 

functions (e.g., recordkeeping; 

inspecting, examining, and auditing 

papers, books, and records; processing 

correspondence; developing and 

approving budgets; responding to 

requests for information). 

v. Routine activities and operations 

conducted in an existing structure that 

are within the scope and compatibility 

of the present functional use of the 

building, will not result in a substantial 

increase in waste discharge to the 

environment, will not result in 

substantially different waste discharges 

from current or previous activities, and 

will not result in emissions that exceed 

established permit limits, if any. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Notices 2385 

vi. Council meetings, hearings, site 

visits, technical assistance, public 

affairs activities, and/or training in 

classrooms, meeting rooms, other 

facilities, or via the Internet. 

(2) Regulation, Monitoring, and 

Oversight of RESTORE Act Activities: 

i. Promulgation or publication of 

regulations, procedures, manuals, and 

guidance documents that are of an 

administrative, financial, legal, 

technical, or procedural nature. 

ii. Internal orders and procedures that 

need not be published in the Federal 

Register under the Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. 

iii. Preparation of studies, reports, or 

investigations that do not propose a 

policy, plan, program, or action. 

(3) Council Activities for Planning, 

Research or Design Activities 

(Documentation Required): 

i. Funding or procurements for 

activities which do not involve or lead 

directly to ground-disturbing activities 

which may have significant effects 

individually or cumulatively, and do 

not commit the Council or its applicants 

to a particular course of action affecting 

the environment, such as grants to 

prepare environmental documents, 

planning, technical assistance, 

engineering and design activities, or 

certain research. Use of this CE will be 

documented following the procedures 

described in Section 4(f) of these 

Procedures. 

(4) Council Funded Activities that Fall 

Under a CE of a Federal Council 

Member (Documentation Required): 

i. Any environmental restoration, 

conservation, or protection activity that 

falls within a CE established by a 

Federal agency Council member, 

provided no extraordinary 

circumstances preclude the use of the 

CE and the Federal agency that 

established the CE is involved in the 

Council action. A Federal agency 

Council member is involved in the 

Council action when that Federal 

agency advises the Council that use of 

the CE would be appropriate for the 

specific action under consideration by 

the Council. Use of this CE will be 

documented following the procedures 

described in Section 4(f) of these 

Procedures. 

(e) Extraordinary Circumstances. 

Some Council Actions that would 

normally be categorically excluded from 

further NEPA review in an EA or EIS 

may not qualify for a CE because 

extraordinary circumstances exist (see 

40 CFR 1508.4). The Responsible 

Official, in cooperation with the 

applicant as appropriate, will conduct a 

review to determine if there are 

extraordinary circumstances. Such 

extraordinary circumstances are: 

(1) A reasonable likelihood of 

substantial controversy regarding the 

potential environmental impacts of the 

proposed action. 

(2) Tribal concerns with actions that 

impact tribal lands or resources. 

(3) A reasonable likelihood of 

adversely affecting environmentally 

sensitive resources. Environmentally 

sensitive resources include but are not 

limited to: 

i. Species that are federally listed or 

proposed for listing as threatened or 

endangered, or their proposed or 

designated critical habitats; and 

ii. Properties listed or eligible for 

listing on the National Register of 

Historic Places. 

(4) A reasonable likelihood of impacts 

that are highly uncertain or involve 

unknown risks or if there is a 

substantial scientific controversy over 

the effects. 

(5) A reasonable likelihood of air 

pollution at levels of concern or 

otherwise requiring a formal conformity 

determination under the Clean Air Act. 

(6) A reasonable likelihood of a 

disproportionately high and adverse 

effect on low income or minority 

populations (see Executive Order 

12898). 

(7) A reasonable likelihood of 

contributing to the introduction or 

spread of noxious weeds or non-native 

invasive species or actions that may 

promote the introduction, or spread of 

such species (see Federal Noxious Weed 

Control Act and Executive Order 

13112). 

(8) A reasonable likelihood of a 

release of petroleum, oils, or lubricants 

(except from a properly functioning 

engine or vehicle) or reportable releases 

of hazardous or toxic substances as 

specified in 40 CFR part 302 

(Designation, Reportable Quantities, and 

Notification); or where the proposed 

action results in the requirement to 

develop or amend a Spill Prevention, 

Control, or Countermeasures Plan in 

accordance with the Oil Pollution 

Prevention regulation. 

The mere existence of any of the 

circumstances described above will not 

necessarily trigger preparation of an EA 

or EIS. The determination that an 

extraordinary circumstance exists and 

an EA or EIS is needed will be based on 

the potential significance of the 

proposed action’s effects on the 

environment. If it is not clear whether 

a CE is appropriate, the Responsible 

Official, after consulting with the 

Council, may require preparation of an 

EA. 

(f) Documented Categorical Exclusion. 

The purpose of CEs is to reduce 

paperwork and streamline the project 

implementation process. The NEPA 

does not require the Council to 

document actions that qualify for a CE 

and do not involve extraordinary 

circumstances (see 40 CFR 1500.4(p)). 

When the Responsible Official chooses 

to document use of a CE in addition to 

those identified in Section 4(d)(3) and 

Section 4(d)(4) of these Procedures, the 

documentation should include: 

(1) A description of the proposed 

action. 

(2) The CE relied upon, including the 

information or process used to 

determine that no extraordinary 

circumstances are present. 

(3) A determination by the 

Responsible Official that the CE applies. 

As a general matter, the Council will 

post documented CEs on its Web site. 

The Council, however, generally will 

not publicly post documentation 

supporting a CE for activities occurring 

on: 

(1) Private lands; or 

(2) Other lands under consideration 

by the Council for a project if the release 

of such information could lead to 

impacts to sensitive lands. 

(g) Emergency Actions/Alternate 

Arrangements: In the event of an 

emergency situation, the Council may 

need to take an action to prevent or 

reduce the risk to the environment or 

public health or safety that may affect 

the quality of human environment 

without having the time to evaluate 

those impacts under NEPA. In some 

cases, the emergency action may be 

covered by an existing NEPA analysis or 

a CE, while in other cases, it may not. 

(1) In cases where the Responsible 

Official, in consultation with the 

Council, determines that an EIS is 

appropriate, the Council will consult 

with CEQ about alternative 

arrangements for complying with NEPA 

in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.11. 

(2) In cases where the Responsible 

Official determines that an 

environmental assessment is 

appropriate, the Responsible Official 

shall consult with the Council to 

establish alternative arrangements for 

the environmental assessment. Any 

such alternative arrangement for an EA 

must be documented and a copy 

provided to CEQ. 

(h) Actions Exempt from the 

Requirements of NEPA. Certain Council 

Actions may be covered by a statutory 

exemption or EPA’s functional 

equivalence under existing law. The 

Council will document its use of such 

an exemption pursuant to applicable 

requirements. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2386 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Notices 

Sec. 5. Timing 

(a) General. The potential 

environmental effects of a proposed 

Council Action will be considered at the 

earliest practicable time along with 

appropriate scientific, technical, and 

economic studies. Coordination with 

appropriate federal, state, tribal, and 

local authorities and, to the extent 

appropriate and described in these 

Procedures, the public meetings, should 

begin at the earliest practicable time. As 

a general matter, the project planning 

process should include all 

environmental permit evaluation and 

review requirements, including 

applicable timeframes when possible, so 

that applicants for funding can collect 

necessary information and provide it to 

the agency with jurisdiction or special 

expertise in a timely manner. 

Applicants or consultants should 

complete these tasks at the earliest 

possible time during project planning to 

ensure full consideration of all 

environmental resources and facilitate 

the Council’s NEPA process. 

(b) Applications for Funding. The 

Applicant may be responsible for 

preparation of the appropriate level of 

proposed NEPA analysis for the 

Council. An EA, EIS, or CE 

determination, as appropriate, will be 

completed prior to the final decision by 

the Council to fund a proposed project 

or program and should accompany the 

application through the decisionmaking process. 

(c) Council Initiated Actions. The EA 

or EIS, as appropriate, will be 

completed prior to a decision by the 

Council to implement an action that 

would have impacts on the environment 

and should accompany the proposed 

action through the decision-making 

process. 

Sec. 6. Coordinating NEPA on Joint 

Actions 

Interagency coordination and 

collaboration can help ensure efficient 

and effective NEPA processes. To that 

end, the Council will serve as a Joint 

Lead, Lead Agency, or Cooperating 

Agency as appropriate for the 

preparation of NEPA documents 

relevant to its activities. Subsections (a) 

through (c) of this Section describe the 

circumstances in which the Council 

may serve as Joint Lead, Lead Agency, 

or Cooperating Agency, along with the 

general roles and responsibilities 

associated with each. In general, the 

Council will either be the Lead or Joint 

Lead Agency on all Council-initiated 

actions subject to NEPA. 

(a) Joint Actions. Where one or more 

Federal agencies, together with the 

Council propose or are involved in the 

same action; are involved in a group of 

actions directly related because of 

functional interdependence or 

geographical proximity; or are involved 

in a single program, the Responsible 

Official for the Council should seek to 

join all such agencies in performing a 

joint NEPA analysis and, where 

appropriate, other necessary 

environmental documentation. 

(b) Lead Agency. 

(1) The Council will follow CEQ’s 

regulation regarding designation of a 

Lead Agency when multiple Federal 

agencies are involved (40 CFR 1501.5). 

The Lead Agency should consult with 

the other participating agencies to 

ensure that the joint action makes the 

best use of the participating agencies’ 

areas of jurisdiction and special 

expertise, that the views of participating 

agencies are considered in the course of 

the NEPA process, and that the 

compliance requirements of all 

participating agencies are met. 

(2) When another Federal agency is 

the Lead Agency, the Council may act 

as either a Co-Lead Agency or a 

Cooperating Agency (as detailed in 

subsection (c) of this Section), as 

appropriate. 

(c) Cooperating Agency. When 

another Federal agency is a Lead 

Agency for the preparation of a NEPA 

review (i.e., CE, EA, EIS) for a proposed 

activity, the Council may be a 

Cooperating Agency. When the Council 

is a Cooperating Agency on a joint 

action, the Responsible Official will 

perform the functions stated in 40 CFR 

1501.6(b) and review the work of the 

Lead Agency to ensure that its work 

product will satisfy the requirements of 

the Council under these Procedures. 

After acting as a Cooperating Agency, 

the Council may adopt the NEPA 

document prepared by the Lead Agency, 

consistent with 40 CFR 1506.3. The 

Council will comply with the review 

and approval responsibilities contained 

in these Procedures prior to signing any 

final NEPA decision document. 

Sec. 7. Applicants for Funding 

(a) General. The Council may require 

an applicant for funding to prepare the 

requisite draft NEPA analysis of the 

proposed project and to submit that 

analysis with the application. The 

Council may also require an applicant to 

prepare and submit environmental 

information in the form of a proposed 

EIS, proposed EA, or proposed 

documentation supporting the 

application of a CE. This could include, 

for example, a proposed draft EIS, 

proposed draft EA, proposed final EIS, 

or proposed final EA, pending Council 

adoption/approval. Documentation 

supporting application of a CE will 

normally be limited to a description of 

the proposed activity, the CE relied 

upon, and the information or process 

used to determine there are no 

extraordinary circumstances. The 

Council may require the applicant to act 

as a Joint Lead Agency, depending on 

whether the applicant is a Federal 

agency. Where appropriate, the Council 

will cooperate with state and local 

agencies to conduct joint processes, 

including joint environmental 

assessments and joint environmental 

impact statements, provided such 

cooperation is fully consistent with 40 

CFR 1506.2. 

(b) Information Required. When an 

applicant is required to submit 

environmental documentation for a 

proposed project or program, the 

Responsible Official, where appropriate, 

will specify the types and extent of 

information required, consistent with 

the CEQ regulations, these Procedures 

and any other applicable laws, 

regulations, Executive Orders, or 

policies. The Responsible Official will 

work with applicants early in the 

process, as appropriate, to assist in the 

development of information responsive 

to sections 10 through 13 of these 

Procedures. The project planning 

process should include all 

environmental permitting and review 

requirements, including applicable 

timeframes when possible, so that 

applicants for funding can collect 

necessary information and provide it to 

the agency with jurisdiction or special 

expertise in a timely manner. 

(c) Limits on Actions by the 

Applicant. The Responsible Official will 

inform an applicant that the applicant 

may not take any action within the 

Council’s jurisdiction that would have 

an adverse environmental impact or 

limit the choice of reasonable 

alternatives, prior to completion of the 

environmental review process by the 

Council (see 40 CFR 1506.1). 

(d) Council Responsibility. The 

Council is responsible for its own 

compliance with Federal environmental 

laws, regulations, Executive Orders, and 

policies. As appropriate, the 

Responsible Official will solicit 

comments from interested parties on the 

environmental consequences of any 

application. 

The Responsible Official will 

independently evaluate and prepare a 

recommendation to the Council 

regarding whether an applicant’s 

environmental documentation satisfies 

the requirements of the CEQ regulations 

and these Procedures. In conducting 

this review, the Responsible Official 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Notices 2387 

will seek the advice of the Council 

Members and/or subject matter experts, 

as appropriate. Upon approval by the 

Council, the documentation will be 

considered to have been prepared by the 

Council for purposes of sections 9 

through 15 of these Procedures. 

Sec. 8. Consultants 

(a) General. The Council or applicants 

to the Council for funding may use 

consultants in the performance of NEPA 

analysis and the preparation of other 

environmental documents. The 

Responsible Official must approve the 

use of a selected consultant before the 

consultant begins performing analyses 

or preparing environmental documents 

related to Council-funded proposals. 

The Responsible Official will review 

any analysis performed and any 

documents prepared by a consultant to 

ensure that they satisfy the requirements 

of these Procedures. 

(b) Conflicts of Interest (40 CFR 

1506.5(c)). The Responsible Official will 

exercise care in selecting consultants 

and reviewing their work to ensure that 

their analysis is complete and objective. 

Consultants will execute a disclosure 

statement prepared by the Responsible 

Official, certifying that they have no 

financial or other interest in the 

outcome of the project. 

(c) Council Responsibility (40 CFR 

1506.5). The Council is responsible for 

its own compliance with Federal 

environmental laws, regulations, 

policies and Executive Orders, and 

cannot delegate this responsibility to 

consultants. The Responsible Official 

will independently evaluate any 

analysis performed and any documents 

prepared by a consultant to ensure that 

they satisfy the requirements of these 

Procedures. The Responsible Official 

will seek the advice of subject matter 

experts and/or Council members, as 

appropriate. 

Sec. 9. Public and Tribal Involvement 

for Environmental Impact Statements 

(a) Policy. Public involvement is 

encouraged in the environmental 

analysis and review of a proposed 

Council Action. 

(b) Procedures. After determining that 

a draft EIS should be prepared, the Lead 

or Co-Lead agency will implement the 

following procedures, at a minimum, to 

engage affected members of the public 

and solicit public input: 

(1) Develop a list of interested parties, 

including Federal, regional, state, and 

local authorities, tribes, environmental 

groups, individuals, businesses, and 

community organizations, as applicable. 

(2) Publish a notice of intent in the 

Federal Register, and initiate scoping in 

accordance with 40 CFR 1501.7 and 

1508.22, and notify directly those 

officials, agencies, organizations, tribes 

and individuals with particular interest 

in the proposal. The Council shall 

engage in Nation-to-Nation consultation, 

as required. 

(3) Hold public scoping meetings as 

appropriate to the action. 

(4) Circulate the draft EIS for 

comment to interested parties. 

(5) Publicize the availability of the 

draft EIS by press release, advertisement 

in local newspapers of general 

circulation, or other suitable means 

such as posting the draft EIS on the 

Council’s Web site. As appropriate, the 

Council will also circulate the draft EIS 

and supporting documents to public 

depositories, such as libraries. The EPA 

will publish a notice of availability in 

the Federal Register which will 

determine the appropriate duration of 

the public review and comment period. 

(6) If necessary or desirable, using the 

criteria in 40 CFR 1506.6(c), hold a 

public meeting or public hearing on the 

draft EIS. If a public hearing is held, the 

draft EIS should be made available at 

least 15 days prior to the hearing. 

(7) Consider and respond to all 

substantive comments in the final EIS 

and provide copies of the final EIS to all 

who request a copy of the final EIS. 

(c) List of Contacts. Interested persons 

may obtain information on the Council’s 

environmental process and on the status 

of EIS’s issued by the Council from the 

Responsible Official. The Council will 

provide contact information on the 

Council’s Web site and in other public 

notices. 

Sec. 10. Environmental Assessment 

(a) Policy. The Responsible Official 

should perform, participate in, or 

coordinate, as appropriate, the process 

of considering the environmental 

impacts of a proposed Council Action at 

the earliest practical time in the 

planning process. To the fullest extent 

possible, steps to comply with all 

environmental laws, regulations, 

policies and Executive Orders, as well 

as the requirements of the RESTORE 

Act, will be undertaken concurrently. 

(b) Scope. An EA should contain a 

brief discussion of the proposed action; 

the purpose and need for the proposed 

action; an appropriate range of 

reasonable alternatives to the proposed 

action, including a no action alternative; 

an evaluation of the environmental 

impacts of the proposed action and any 

identified alternatives; a list of the 

agencies and persons consulted; a list of 

alternatives eliminated from further 

analysis with an explanation of why 

they were eliminated; a list of all 

applicable Federal environmental laws 

and requirements; and mitigation 

measures needed to reduce 

environmental impacts to below the 

level of significance (if applicable). The 

scope of environmental impacts 

considered in the EA should include 

both beneficial and adverse impacts; 

direct, indirect, and cumulative 

impacts; impacts of both long- and 

short-term duration; as well as analysis 

of the effects of any appropriate 

mitigation measures or best 

management practices that are 

considered. The mitigation measures 

can be analyzed either as elements of 

alternatives or in a separate discussion 

of mitigation. 

The level of detail and depth of 

impact analysis should be limited to 

documenting the potential impacts of 

the proposed action and whether the 

proposed action would result in any 

significant adverse environmental 

impacts. The EA should contain 

objective analyses to support its 

environmental impact conclusions. 

(c) Using Existing Environmental 

Analyses Prepared Pursuant to NEPA 

and the CEQ Regulations. 

(1) When available, the Responsible 

Official, or applicant if applicable, 

should use existing NEPA analyses for 

assessing the impacts of a proposed 

action and reasonable alternatives. 

Procedures for adoption or 

incorporation by reference of such 

analyses must be followed where 

applicable. 

(2) If existing NEPA analyses include 

data and assumptions appropriate for 

the analysis at hand, the Responsible 

Official, or applicant if applicable, 

should use these existing NEPA 

analyses and/or their underlying data 

and assumptions where feasible. 

(3) An existing environmental 

analysis prepared pursuant to NEPA 

and the CEQ regulations may be used in 

its entirety if the Responsible Official 

determines, with appropriate supporting 

documentation, that it adequately 

assesses the environmental effects of the 

proposed action and reasonable 

alternatives. The supporting record 

must include an evaluation of whether 

new circumstances, new information or 

changes in the action or its impacts not 

previously analyzed may result in 

significantly different environmental 

effects. 

(4) The Responsible Official, or 

applicant if applicable, should make the 

best use of existing NEPA documents by 

supplementing, tiering to, incorporating 

by reference, or adopting previous 

environmental analyses to avoid 

redundancy and unnecessary 

paperwork. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2388 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Notices 

(d) Public Coordination on the EA/

FONSI. 

(1) Normally a draft FONSI need not 

be coordinated in advance outside the 

Council prior to its issuance. Copies of 

approved FONSIs will be available to 

the public, government agencies, or 

Congress upon request at any time. 

(2) The Council will post final EAs 

and approved FONSIs on its Web site. 

(3) To the extent appropriate and 

practicable, the Council may provide 

the public with an opportunity to 

review and comment on draft EAs. 

When the proposed action is, or is 

closely similar to, one which normally 

requires an EIS as identified in Section 

12 of these Procedures, or when the 

nature of the proposed action is one 

without precedent, the Council will 

make a draft EA available to the public 

for review for a period of not less than 

30 days before the final determination is 

made by the Council. The Council will 

consider any and all comments received 

prior to making a final decision 

regarding the associated FONSI. 

(e) Level of Analysis. The EA process 

should assess each impact identified as 

relevant to the proposed action or 

alternatives. The level of analysis of 

each impact should be guided by the 

following factors: 

(1) The likelihood of the potential 

effects; 

(2) The magnitude of the potential 

effects; and 

(3) Whether any adverse effects on the 

environment may be significant, even if 

on balance the proposed project may be 

beneficial. 

(f) Determination Based on the EA. 

On the basis of the EA, the Responsible 

Official will determine whether the 

proposed action has a potentially 

significant impact on the human 

environment and will make a 

recommendation to the Council as to 

whether an EIS is needed. Based on the 

Council’s decision, the Responsible 

Official will take action in accordance 

with subsections (f)(1) through (3) of 

this Section, as applicable: 

(1) If the Council decides that the 

proposed action will not have a 

significant impact on the human 

environment, the Responsible Official 

will prepare a draft FONSI in 

accordance with Section 11 of these 

Procedures. 

(2) If the Council decides that the 

proposed action has a potentially 

significant impact, the Responsible 

Official will prepare a NOI to prepare an 

EIS, and begin the scoping process (40 

CFR 1501.7). 

(3) If the proposed action will occur 

in a wetland or in a 100-year floodplain, 

the Council will ensure an opportunity 

for public comment on a draft of the EA. 

If such a situation is present, the EA 

also will follow Section 13(h)(6) or (8) 

of these Procedures, as applicable. 

Sec. 11. Finding of No Significant 

Impact 

(a) General. A FONSI, as determined 

in accordance with Section 10 of these 

Procedures, is prepared for all Council 

Actions for which an EIS is not required 

and a CE does not apply. 

(b) Decision-making on the Proposed 

Action. The Council may not commit 

itself or its resources to an action 

requiring an EA (but not an EIS) until 

a FONSI has been approved in 

accordance with this Section. 

(c) Staff Responsibilities. 

(1) When required, the Responsible 

Official will prepare a draft FONSI, 

which will include the EA, or a 

summary of it, and note any other 

related environmental documents. 

(2) After complying with subsection 

(c)(1) of this Section, the Responsible 

Official will present the finding to the 

Council, which will approve the FONSI 

or decide an EIS will be prepared. The 

Council will authorize the Executive 

Director to sign FONSIs on behalf of the 

Council. 

(d) Representations of Mitigation. 

There may be situations in which the 

Council relies on the implementation of 

certain measures to mitigate the 

significance of the proposed action’s 

environmental impacts and bases its 

FONSI on the implementation of such 

measures. Under such situations, the 

Council will ensure that the mitigation 

measures are implemented. Where 

applicable, the Council will work with 

the applicant to include appropriate 

mitigation measures as a grant condition 

or as a contract provision. See, CEQ’s 

Memorandum, ‘‘Appropriate Use of 

Mitigation and Monitoring and 

Clarifying the Appropriate Use of 

Mitigated Findings of No Significant 

Impact.’’ 

(e) Changes and Supplements. If, 

prior to taking a final Council Action for 

which a FONSI was prepared, a 

significant change is made that would 

alter environmental impacts, or if 

significant new information becomes 

available regarding the environmental 

impacts, the Responsible Official, or 

applicant if applicable, will reevaluate 

the EA to determine whether 

supplementation is necessary. If the EA 

is not sufficient, the Responsible 

Official, or applicant if applicable, will 

supplement the existing EA or prepare 

a new EA to determine whether the 

changes or new information indicate the 

action may have a significant impact. If, 

because of the change or new 

information, the proposed action may 

have a significant impact, the 

Responsible Official, after consulting 

with the Council, will issue an NOI to 

prepare an EIS and begin the scoping 

process. 

(f) Contents of a FONSI (40 CFR 

1508.13). A FONSI may include the EA 

or it may incorporate the EA by 

reference, in accordance with CEQ’s 

regulations. The FONSI may be 

combined with a Council decisionmaking document or it may be limited 

to determining that an EIS is not 

required. A FONSI should contain at 

least the following: 

(1) Identification of the document as 

a FONSI; 

(2) Identification of the Council; 

(3) The title of the action; 

(4) The preparer(s) of the document 

(i.e., a list of those persons or 

organizations assisting in the 

preparation of the document); 

(5) The month and year of preparation 

of the document; 

(6) The name, title, address, and 

phone number of the person in the 

Council who should be contacted to 

supply further information about the 

document; 

(7) A brief description of the proposed 

action; 

(8) A brief description of, or reference 

to the page/section in the EA that 

discusses, the alternatives considered; 

(9) A brief discussion of, or reference 

to the page/section in the EA that 

discusses, the environmental effects of 

the proposed action; 

(10) Documentation of compliance 

with Sections 13(h)(6) and (8) of these 

Procedures, if the proposed action will 

occur in a wetland or in a 100-year 

floodplain; 

(11) Reference to the page/section in 

the EA that provides the list of all 

Federal permits, licenses, and any other 

approvals or consultations which must 

be obtained in order to proceed with the 

proposal; 

(12) A discussion of mitigation 

measures and environmental 

commitments that will be implemented, 

if applicable; 

(13) A conclusion that the preferred 

alternative, and where appropriate any 

other reasonable alternative(s), has no 

potentially significant impact; and 

(14) The Executive Director’s 

signature indicating the approval of the 

Council as detailed in subsection (c) of 

this Section. 

Sec. 12. Environmental Impact 

Statement 

(a) General. The Council will prepare 

an EIS for Council Actions with 

potentially significantly impacts, as 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Notices 2389 

determined in accordance with Section 

10 of these Procedures. 

(b) Decision-making on the Proposed 

Action. The Council may seek a waiver 

from the EPA of the time limit 

requirements of 40 CFR 1506.10 for 

compelling reasons of national policy. 

(c) Staff Responsibilities and Timing. 

(1) The Council, or applicant if 

applicable, should begin the process for 

preparation of an EIS as soon as it 

determines, or the EA performed in 

accordance with Section 10 of these 

Procedures discloses, that the proposed 

action has potentially significantly 

environmental impacts. 

(2) If the Council is the Lead Agency 

or Joint Lead, the Responsible Official 

will issue an NOI and undertake the 

scoping process identified in 40 CFR 

1501.7 as soon as the Council decides to 

prepare an EIS. 

(3) In preparing a draft EIS, the 

Responsible Official, or applicant if 

applicable, will consider any scoping 

comments, develop the relevant 

analysis, and engage in applicable 

coordination in accordance with CEQ’s 

regulations and Section 13 of these 

Procedures. 

(4) The Responsible Official will 

submit the proposed draft EIS to the 

Council. 

(5) A draft EIS may be formally 

released outside the Council only after 

approval by the Council. 

(6) The Responsible Official will 

direct electronic distribution of the draft 

EIS as follows: EPA; all interested 

Council regional and state offices; all 

Federal agencies that have jurisdiction 

by law or special expertise with respect 

to the environmental impacts of the 

proposed action; tribal, state, and local 

government authorities; to the extent 

practicable and appropriate, public 

libraries in the area to be affected by the 

proposed action; and all other interested 

parties identified during the preparation 

of the draft EIS that have requested a 

copy. Hard copies will be made 

available upon request. Public notice 

will be designed to reach potentially 

interested or affected individuals, 

governments, and organizations. In 

addition, the draft EIS will be made 

available on the Council’s Web site 

concurrently with the public comment 

period. 

(7) The draft EIS will be made 

available for public and agency 

comment for at least 45 days from the 

date when EPA publishes its Notice of 

Availability (NOA) in the Federal 

Register. The time period for comments 

on the draft EIS will be specified in a 

prominent place in the NOA and on the 

coversheet of the draft EIS. Public 

comments must be provided to the 

person designated in the public notice. 

(8) Where a public hearing is to be 

held on the draft EIS, as determined in 

accordance with Section 9(b)(6) of these 

Procedures, the draft EIS will be made 

available to the public at least 15 days 

prior to the hearing (see 40 CFR 1506.6). 

(9) The Responsible Official will 

consider substantive comments received 

on the draft EIS. If a final EIS is not 

submitted to the Council for approval 

within three years from the date of the 

draft EIS circulation, the Responsible 

Official or applicant, as appropriate, 

will prepare a written reevaluation of 

the draft to determine whether the draft 

EIS warrants supplementation due to 

changed circumstances or new 

information. If so, a supplement to the 

draft EIS or a new draft EIS will be 

prepared and circulated as required by 

subsections (c)(1) through (9) of this 

Section. If the draft EIS does not warrant 

supplementation, the Responsible 

Official will prepare the final EIS. 

(10) The Responsible Official will 

submit the final EIS and draft ROD to 

the Council for a decision (see Section 

15 of these Procedures). 

(11) The ROD will become final upon 

signature of the Executive Director. The 

Council will delegate authority for 

signature of RODs to the Executive 

Director, provided such RODs are first 

approved by the Council. 

(12) The Responsible Official will 

direct electronic distribution of the final 

EIS and ROD as follows: EPA; all 

interested Council regional and state 

offices; state, tribal, and local 

authorities; to the extent practicable, 

public libraries in the area affected by 

the proposed action; Federal agencies 

and other parties who commented 

substantively on the draft EIS; and all 

agencies, organizations, or individuals 

that have requested a copy. Hard copies 

will be provided upon request. The final 

EIS and ROD will be posted on the 

Council’s Web site and notice will go 

out to interested parties who have asked 

to receive notice. 

(13) If major steps toward 

implementation of the proposed action 

have not commenced, or a major 

decision point for actions implemented 

in stages has not occurred, within three 

years from the date of publication of the 

final EIS, the Responsible Official will 

prepare a written evaluation of whether 

the final EIS warrants supplementation. 

The Responsible Official will submit 

this evaluation to the Council. 

(d) Changes and Supplements. Where 

a draft or final EIS has been prepared for 

a proposed Council Action, and 

substantial changes to the proposal are 

made or significant new circumstances 

or information comes to light that is 

relevant to environmental concerns and 

bears on the proposed action or its 

impacts, the Responsible Official, or 

applicant if appropriate, will prepare a 

supplement to the original draft or final 

EIS. Such a supplement will be 

processed in accordance with 

subsections (c)(3) through (13) of this 

Section. The Responsible Official will 

determine whether, and to what extent, 

any portion of the proposed action is 

unaffected by the planning change or 

new information. Where appropriate, 

Council decision-making on portions of 

the proposed action having utility 

independent of the affected portion may 

go forward regardless of the concurrent 

processing of the supplement, so long as 

the EIS and ROD are completed for 

those actions having independent utility 

and the NOI for the supplemental NEPA 

analysis and documentation articulates 

the basis for determining independent 

utility. 

(e) Representations of Mitigation. 

Where a final EIS has represented that 

certain measures will be taken to 

mitigate the adverse environmental 

impacts of an action, the Council will 

include the mitigation measures, and 

any appropriate monitoring wherever 

appropriate, as a condition of funding 

or, where appropriate, contract 

provisions. If necessary, the Council 

may take steps to enforce 

implementation of such mitigation 

measures. 

(f) Contents of an EIS. The contents of 

both a draft and final EIS are detailed in 

the CEQ regulations and Section 13 of 

these Procedures. Recognizing that CEQ 

regulations allow the combination of 

NEPA documents with other agency 

documents and that the Council may 

find it practical to do so, format and 

page limitations on EIS’s should follow 

those set out in 40 CFR 1502.7 and 

1502.10, to the extent practicable. An 

EIS should avoid extraneous data and 

discussion. The text of an EIS should be 

written in plain language, 

comprehensible to a lay person. 

Technical materials should be placed 

into appendices, produced as standalone reports available on the Council’s 

Web site, or made available in hard 

copy by request. Graphics and drawings, 

maps, and photographs may be used as 

necessary to clarify the proposal and its 

alternatives. The sources of all data used 

in an EIS will be noted or referenced in 

the EIS. Previous NEPA analyses should 

be used, where available, to ensure 

efficient preparation of an EIS. As 

appropriate, previous NEPA analyses 

can be tiered to, incorporated by 

reference, or may be adopted into the 

document consistent with CEQ’s 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2390 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Notices 

regulations and the process detailed 

above in Section 10(c) of these 

Procedures. See 40 CFR 1502.20, 

1502.21, and 1508.28. 

Sec. 13. Contents of an Environmental 

Impact Statement 

To the fullest extent possible, the 

Responsible Official, Lead Agency, or 

applicant, will concurrently draft the 

EIS while seeking compliance with 

other applicable environmental 

requirements. 

In addition to the requirements of 40 

CFR 1502.10 through 1502.18, and 

subject to the general provisions of 

Section 12 of these Procedures, an EIS 

should contain the following: 

(a) Identification of the Council. 

(b) The Responsible Official who 

prepared or oversaw preparation of the 

document. 

(c) The month and year the document 

was prepared. 

(d) In a draft EIS, the name, title, and 

address of the person in the Council to 

whom comments on the document 

should be addressed, and the date by 

which comments must be received to be 

considered. Typically this will be the 

Responsible Official. 

(e) A list of those persons, 

organizations, or agencies assisting the 

Council in the preparation of the 

document. 

(f) In a final EIS, a list of all agencies, 

organizations, or persons from whom 

comments were received on the draft 

EIS. 

(g) A short, introductory description 

of the environment likely to be affected 

by the proposed action, including a list 

of all states, counties, and local areas 

likely to be affected. 

(h) Consistent with the description 

provided in 40 CFR 1502.16, an analysis 

of the environmental consequences of 

the proposed action. The following 

areas should be considered in the 

environmental analysis, although their 

discussion—and the extent of that 

discussion—in the EIS is dependent on 

their relevance: 

(1) Air quality. There should be an 

assessment of the consistency of the 

proposal and alternatives with Federal 

and state plans for the attainment and 

maintenance of air quality standards. 

(2) Water quality. There should be an 

assessment of the consistency of the 

alternatives with Federal and state 

standards concerning drinking water, 

storm sewer drainage, sedimentation 

control, and non-point source 

discharges such as runoff from 

construction operations. The need for 

any permits under sections 402 and 404 

of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1342 

and 1344) and Section 10 of the Rivers 

and Harbors Act should also be 

assessed. 

(3) Noise. The alternatives should be 

assessed with respect to applicable 

Federal, state, and local noise standards. 

(4) Solid waste disposal. The 

alternatives should be assessed with 

respect to state and local standards for 

sanitary landfill and solid waste 

disposal. 

(5) Natural ecological systems. The 

EIS should assess both short-term (e.g., 

construction period) and long-term 

impacts of the alternatives on wildlife, 

vegetation, and ecological processes in 

the affected environment. 

(6) Wetlands. In accordance with 

Executive Order 11990, the EIS should 

determine whether any of the 

alternatives will be located in a wetland 

area. If the proposed action is located in 

a wetland area, the final EIS should 

document a determination by the 

Responsible Official that there is no 

practicable alternative to such location, 

and that the proposed action includes 

all practicable measures to minimize 

harm to wetlands which may result 

from such use. 

(7) Protected species. If applicable, 

the EIS will discuss the impacts of the 

alternatives on species that are listed or 

proposed for listing as threatened or 

endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act, or the proposed or 

designated critical habitats for such 

species; protected species under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act; and 

birds protected under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act. In such cases, the EIS 

should discuss any consultation or 

coordination, as appropriate, with the 

appropriate Federal agency. 

(8) Flood hazard evaluation and 

floodplain management. Under E.O. 

11988, Federal agencies proposing 

activities in a 100-year floodplain are 

directed to consider alternatives to 

avoid adverse effects and incompatible 

development in the floodplain. If no 

practicable alternatives exist to siting an 

action in the floodplain, the EIS should 

discuss how the action will be designed 

to minimize potential harm to or within 

the floodplain. 

(9) Coastal zone management. If 

applicable, the EIS should discuss to 

what extent the alternatives are 

consistent with approved coastal zone 

management programs in affected states, 

as required by section 307(c)(2) of the 

Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 

U.S.C. 1456(c)(2). 

(10) Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). If 

applicable, the EIS will identify any 

EFH that could be impacted by the 

alternatives. Actions that could have the 

potential to affect EFH require 

consultation with the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration under 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act to evaluate 

potential impacts to designated EFH and 

minimize these impacts. The final EIS 

should document these consultations. 

(11) Use of natural resources other 

than energy, such as water, minerals, or 

timber. 

(12) Aesthetic environment and 

scenic resources. The EIS should 

identify any significant aesthetic 

changes likely to occur in the natural 

landscape and in the developed 

environment. 

(13) Land use. The EIS should assess 

the impacts of each alternative on local 

land use controls and comprehensive 

regional planning, as well as on 

development within the affected 

environment, including, where 

applicable, other proposed federal 

actions in the area. 

(14) Socioeconomic environment. The 

EIS should assess the number and kinds 

of available jobs likely to be affected by 

the alternatives. For each alternative 

considered, the EIS should also discuss 

the potential for community disruption 

or cohesion, the possibility of 

demographic shifts, and impacts on 

local government services and revenues. 

(15) Public health and public safety. 

The EIS should assess potential 

environmental impacts relevant to 

public health and safety. For example, 

the EIS should assess the transportation 

or use of any hazardous materials that 

may be involved in the alternatives, and 

the level of protection afforded residents 

of the affected environment from 

construction period and long-term 

operations associated with the 

alternatives. 

(16) Recreation areas and 

opportunities. The EIS should assess the 

impacts of the alternatives on 

recreational activities, including 

impacts on non-site-specific activities, 

such as hiking and bicycling, and 

impacts on non-activity-specific sites 

such as those designated ‘‘open space.’’ 

(17) Environmental Justice. The EIS 

should address environmental justice 

considerations as required by Executive 

Order 12898, ‘‘Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations.’’ 

(18) Sites of historical, archeological, 

architectural, or cultural significance. In 

accordance with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act, 16 

U.S.C. 470(f), and its implementing 

regulations, 36 CFR part 800, the EIS 

should identify all properties included 

in or eligible for inclusion in the 

National Register of Historic Places that 

may be affected by the preferred 

alternative and other reasonable 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Notices 2391 

alternatives. The EIS also should 

include documentation of the status of 

consultation with the appropriate State 

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

(THPO). The EIS should discuss the 

criteria of adverse effect on historic 

properties (36 CFR 800.5) with regard to 

each alternative. The final EIS should 

include documentation of the status of 

consultation with the appropriate 

SHPO(s) or THPO(s). In the event that 

the Responsible Official, in consultation 

with the SHPO or THPO, finds that a 

proposed action will have an adverse 

effect on such a site, the final EIS also 

should include documentation of the 

status of subsequent consultation with 

the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation. 

(19) Climate Change. The EIS should 

estimate the greenhouse gas emissions 

associated with the alternatives, as 

appropriate, and consider mitigation 

measures. The EIS should also consider 

the effects that climate change may have 

on the proposed alternatives, and 

consider adaptation alternatives, where 

appropriate. 

(20) Hazardous, radioactive, and toxic 

waste. The EIS should assess the 

consistency of the alternatives with 

Federal and state requirements 

concerning hazardous, radioactive, and 

toxic waste management in the program 

or project area. 

(i) A description of the impacts of the 

alternatives and a detailed description 

of mitigation measures available or 

planned to avoid, minimize, rectify, 

reduce over time, or compensate each 

adverse impact, if not included in the 

alternatives. Impacts and mitigation 

measures should be identified in a table 

as long-term and/or short-term as 

applicable. This part of the EIS should 

also include a summary of any 

irreversible or irretrievable 

commitments of resources that would be 

likely to result from the alternatives. 

(j) A brief discussion of the 

relationship between local short-term 

uses of the environment affected by the 

alternatives, and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity. 

(k) A compilation of all applicable 

Federal, state, and tribal permits, 

licenses, and approvals which are 

required before the proposed action may 

commence. The final EIS should 

document compliance with the 

requirements of all applicable Federal 

environmental laws, regulations, 

Executive Orders, and policies. If 

compliance is not possible by the time 

of final EIS issuance, the final EIS 

should discuss the status of compliance 

and should specify that all applicable 

environmental compliance requirements 

must be addressed prior to project 

implementation. 

(l) The final EIS should provide a 

synopsis or compilation of substantive 

comments received on the draft EIS, 

whether made in writing or orally at a 

public hearing, and responses to 

comments. The response to those 

comments should be consistent with the 

procedures set forth in CEQ’s 

regulations (40 CFR 1503.4). Comments 

may be collected and summarized, 

except for comments by other Federal 

agencies which should be provided in 

total and where otherwise required by 

Federal law or regulation. Before the EIS 

is put into final form, every effort 

should be made to resolve significant 

issues with the Federal or state agencies 

administering Federal laws. The final 

EIS will describe such issues, 

consultations and efforts to resolve such 

issues, and provide an explanation of 

why any remaining issues have not been 

resolved. 

Sec. 14. Programmatic Environmental 

Review 

(a) A programmatic NEPA analysis is 

used to assess the environmental 

impacts of a proposed action that is 

broad in reach; analysis of subsequent 

actions that fall within the program may 

be tiered to such analyses, as described 

in the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.20 

and 1508.28). A programmatic analysis 

may be used for proposed policies, 

plans, and programs that address a 

given geographic area, common 

environmental impacts to a class of 

actions, or activities that are not 

location-specific. 

(b) Programmatic NEPA analyses may 

take the form of a programmatic 

environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement. 

(c) Programmatic NEPA analyses may 

be used when there are limitations on 

available information or uncertainty 

regarding the timing, location, and 

environmental impacts of subsequent 

implementing actions. 

(d) A programmatic NEPA analysis 

may also provide the basis for decisions 

regarding proposed projects prior to the 

Council’s consideration of the impacts 

for specific projects (e.g., applicable 

mitigation measures, identifying 

alternatives). This analysis can also 

programmatically address potential 

cumulative and indirect effects. This 

provides an opportunity to tier the 

consideration of the subsequent action 

to the programmatic analysis, avoiding 

duplicative efforts. 

(e) The document should identify 

program-level alternatives and assess 

the broad program-wide environmental 

impacts. To the extent information is 

available, it should also identify the 

reasonable alternatives to and potential 

impacts of project-specific Council 

Actions within the program, and the 

impacts on resources. 

(f) Where a programmatic 

environmental document has been 

prepared, the Responsible Official may 

examine each project-level action 

encompassed by the programmatic 

document to determine whether the 

project-level action has been sufficiently 

analyzed in the programmatic document 

to determine whether and what 

additional analysis is appropriate. 

(g) For any project-level action, the 

Council, or project applicant, will 

prepare additional environmental 

documentation as required by these 

Procedures, unless the documentation 

prepared for the programmatic action 

satisfies the requirements of these 

Procedures. Project-level documentation 

should reference and summarize the 

programmatic document and limit the 

discussion to the unique alternatives to, 

impacts of, and mitigation for the 

project. 

(h) An environmental assessment 

prepared in support of an individual 

proposed action can be tiered to a 

programmatic or other broader-scope 

environmental impact statement. An 

environmental assessment may be 

prepared, and a finding of no significant 

impact reached, for a proposed action 

with significant effects, whether direct, 

indirect, or cumulative, if the 

environmental assessment is tiered to a 

broader environmental impact statement 

which fully analyzed those significant 

effects. Tiering to the programmatic or 

broader-scope environmental impact 

statement would allow the preparation 

of an environmental assessment and a 

finding of no significant impact for the 

individual proposed action, so long as 

any previously unanalyzed effects are 

not significant. A finding of no 

significant impact other than those 

already disclosed and analyzed in the 

environmental impact statement to 

which the environmental assessment is 

tiered may also be called a ‘‘finding of 

no new significant impact.’’ 

Sec. 15. Record of Decision 

(a) General. The Responsible Official 

will prepare a draft ROD when the 

Council is prepared to make a final 

decision on the proposed action. The 

timing of the agency’s decision will 

follow the requirements of 40 CFR 

1506.10. The draft ROD may be 

processed concurrently with the final 

EIS. If the draft ROD is processed 

subsequently, it will follow the same 

approval process as a final EIS. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2392 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Notices 

(b) Contents. The ROD will include a 

description of the proposed action and 

the environmental information specified 

in 40 CFR 1505.2. A ROD may be 

conditioned upon the approval of 

permits, licenses, and/or approvals that 

were not complete prior to issuance of 

the ROD. 

(c) Changes. If the Council wishes to 

take an action not identified as the 

preferred alternative in the final EIS, or 

proposes to make substantial changes to 

the findings discussed in a draft ROD, 

the Council will revise the ROD and 

process it internally in the same manner 

as EIS approval, in accordance with 

Section 12(c) of these Procedures. 

Will D. Spoon, 

Program Analyst. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00681 Filed 1–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–58–P 

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD 

INVESTIGATION BOARD 

Sunshine Act Meeting 

TIME AND DATE: January 28, 2015, 6:00 

p.m.–9:00 p.m. PST. 

PLACE: Richmond City Hall, 450 Civic 

Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804. 

STATUS: Open to the public. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The 

Chemical Safety and Hazard 

Investigation Board (CSB) will convene 

a public meeting on January 28, 2015, 

starting at 6:00 p.m. PST at the 

Richmond City Hall, 450 Civic Center 

Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804. At the 

public meeting, the Board will consider 

and vote on the final report of the CSB’s 

investigation into the August 6, 2012, 

fire at the Chevron-Richmond refinery 

that endangered 19 workers and sent 

more than 15,000 local residents to seek 

medical attention. 

The public meeting is intended to 

provide the affected community and 

interested stakeholders with findings, 

conclusions and recommendations 

resulting from the CSB’s investigation 

into the Chevron incident. 

Following the staff presentation, the 

Board will hear comments from the 

public. All staff presentations are 

preliminary and are intended solely to 

allow the Board to consider in a public 

forum the issues and factors involved in 

the case. No factual analyses, 

conclusions, or findings presented by 

staff should be considered final. At the 

conclusion of the staff presentation, the 

Board may vote on the final product(s). 

Lastly, the Board may also consider 

such other items of business as 

determined by the Chairperson. 

Additional Information 

The meeting is free and open to the 

public. If you require a translator or 

interpreter, please notify the individual 

listed below as the ‘‘Contact Person for 

Further Information,’’ at least five 

business days prior to the meeting. 

The CSB is an independent federal 

agency charged with investigating 

accidents and hazards that result, or 

may result, in the catastrophic release of 

extremely hazardous substances. The 

agency’s Board Members are appointed 

by the President and confirmed by the 

Senate. CSB investigations look into all 

aspects of chemical accidents and 

hazards, including physical causes such 

as equipment failure as well as 

inadequacies in regulations, industry 

standards, and safety management 

systems. 

Public Comment 

Members of the public are invited to 

make brief statements to the Board at 

the conclusion of the staff presentation. 

The time provided for public statements 

will depend upon the number of people 

who wish to speak. Speakers should 

assume that their presentations will be 

limited to five minutes or less, but 

commenters may submit written 

statements for the record. 

Contact Person for Further Information 

Hillary J. Cohen, Communications 

Manager, hillary.cohen@csb.gov or (202) 

446–8094. General information about 

the CSB can be found on the agency 

Web site at: www.csb.gov. 

Dated: January 14, 2015. 

Daniel M. Horowitz, 

Managing Director. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00765 Filed 1–14–15; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6350–01–P 

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting 

of the Wyoming State Advisory 

Committee 

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 

the provisions of the rules and 

regulations of the U.S. Commission on 

Civil Rights (Commission), and the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA), that an orientation and 

planning meeting of the Wyoming State 

Advisory Committee to the Commission 

will convene at 11:00 a.m. (MDT) on 

Saturday, February 7, 2015, in the Sage 

Room, Laramie County Library, 2200 

Pioneer Avenue, Cheyenne, WY 82001. 

The purpose of the orientation meeting 

is to inform the newly appointed 

Committee members about the rules of 

operation of federal advisory 

committees and to select additional 

officers, as determined by the 

Committee. The purpose of the planning 

meeting is to discuss potential topics 

that the Committee may wish to study. 

Persons who desire additional 

information may contact the Rocky 

Mountain Regional Office, U.S. 

Commission on Civil Rights, 1961 Stout 

Street, Suite 13–201, Denver, CO 80294, 

phone 303–866–1040 and fax 303–866– 

1050, or email to Evelyn Bohor at 

ebohor@usccr.gov. 

Persons needing accessibility services 

should contact the Rocky Mountain 

Regional Office at least 10 working days 

before the scheduled date of the 

meeting. 

Records generated from this meeting 

may be inspected and reproduced at the 

Rocky Mountain Regional Office, as 

they become available, both before and 

after the meeting. Persons interested in 

the work of this advisory committee are 

advised to go to the Commission’s Web 

site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the 

Rocky Mountain Regional Office at the 

above phone number, email or street 

address. 

The meeting will be conducted 

pursuant to the provision of the rules 

and regulations of the Commission and 

FACA. 

Dated: January 12, 2015. 

David Mussatt, 

Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00582 Filed 1–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6335–01–P 

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting 

of the New Mexico Advisory 

Committee 

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 

the provisions of the rules and 

regulations of the U.S. Commission on 

Civil Rights (Commission), and the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA), that an orientation and 

planning meeting of the New Mexico 

Advisory Committee to the Commission 

will convene at 1:00 p.m. (MDT) on 

Tuesday, February 10, 2015, in the 

Wells Fargo Board Room, Albuquerque 

Hispano Chamber of commerce, 1309 

Fourth Street NW., Albuquerque, NM 

87102. The purpose of the orientation 

meeting is to inform the newly 

appointed Committee members about 

the rules of operation of federal advisory 

committees and to select additional 

officers, as determined by the 

Committee. The purpose of the planning 

meeting is to discuss potential topics 

that the Committee may wish to study. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES