[Federal Register: September 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 181)]
[Notices]
[Page 54816-54820]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19se06-47]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
The National Environmental Policy Act--Guidance on Categorical
Exclusions
AGENCY: Council on Environmental Quality.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) used an interagency
work group to develop guidance to Federal agencies for establishing and
for using categorical exclusions in meeting their responsibilities
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). CEQ invites
comments on the proposed guidance before issuing the final guidance to
the heads of the Federal agencies. The proposed guidance,
``Establishing, Revising, and Using Categorical Exclusions under the
National Environmental Policy Act'', is reprinted below and is also
available at http://www.NEPA.gov in the Current Developments section.
DATES: Written comments should be submitted on or before October 27,
2006.
ADDRESSES: Electronic or facsimile comments on the proposed guidance
are preferred because Federal offices experience intermittent mail
delays from security screening. Electronic comments can be sent to NEPA
Modernization (CE) at hgreczmiel@ceq.eop.gov. Written comments may be
faxed to NEPA Modernization (CE) at (202) 456-0753. Written comments
may also be submitted to NEPA Modernization (CE), Attn: Associate
Director for NEPA Oversight, 722 Jackson Place NW., Washington DC
20503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Horst Greczmiel, 202-395-5750.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
established a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Task Force and
is now implementing recommendations designed to modernize the
implementation of NEPA and make the NEPA process more effective and
efficient. Additional information is available on the task force Web
site at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/ntf.
The proposed guidance, ``Establishing, Revising, and Using
Categorical Exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act,''
was developed to assist agencies with developing and using categorical
exclusions for actions that do not have significant effects on the
human environment and eliminate the need for unnecessary paperwork and
effort under NEPA for categories of actions that normally do not
warrant preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) or
environmental assessment (EA). Developing and using appropriate
categorical exclusions promotes the cost-effective use of agency NEPA
related resources. CEQ requests public input and comments on the
following proposed guidance:
Establishing, Revising, and Using Categorical Exclusions under the
National Environmental Policy Act.
I. Introduction
The following guidance is provided to assist Federal agencies in
improving and
[[Page 54817]]
modernizing their administration of categorical exclusions under NEPA.
The guidance recommends procedures and approaches for establishing and
revising categorical exclusions; involving the public; documenting
development, revision, and use of categorical exclusions; and
periodically reviewing categorical exclusions.
The CEQ regulations define categorical exclusion in 40 CFR 1508.4:
Categorical exclusion'' means a category of actions
which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect
on the human environment and which have been found to have no such
effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency in implementation
of these regulations (Sec. 1507.3) and for which, therefore,
neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact
statement is required. * * * Any procedures under this section shall
provide for extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded
action may have a significant environmental effect.
CEQ established the CEQ NEPA Task Force to review NEPA
implementation and identify opportunities to improve and modernize the
NEPA process. To promote consistent categorical exclusion development
and use, the CEQ NEPA Task Force recommended that CEQ issue clarifying
guidance on categorical exclusions.\1\ This guidance is based on
existing CEQ regulations and guidance, legal precedent, and agency NEPA
experience. In keeping with CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1507.1, the
intent of this guidance is to allow agencies flexibility in
implementing the procedures for categorical exclusions that are adapted
to the requirements of other applicable laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Council on Environmental Quality, ``The NEPA Task Force
Report to the Council on Environmental Quality--Modernizing NEPA
Implementation'', (Sept. 2003), available at http://www.ceq.eh.doe.gov/ntf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. The Purpose of Establishing New Categorical Exclusions \2\
The purpose of a categorical exclusion is to eliminate the need for
unnecessary paperwork and effort under NEPA for categories of actions
that normally do not warrant preparation of an environmental impact
statement (EIS) or environmental assessment (EA).\3\ Developing
appropriate categorical exclusions promotes the cost-effective use of
agency NEPA related resources. Federal agency personnel should develop
a categorical exclusion when they identify a class of actions without
significant environmental impacts. A Federal agency should also
consider developing categorical exclusions to respond to changes in
mission or responsibilities as the agency gains experience with the new
activities and their environmental consequences.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This guidance applies to establishing new or revised
categorical exclusions, and uses the term ``new'' to include
revisions of categorical exclusions that are more than
administrative (e.g., revise to update outdated office or agency
title) or editorial (e.g., correct spelling or typographical
errors).
\3\ 40 CFR 1500.4(p) and 1500.5(k).
\4\ When legislative or administrative restructuring creates a
new agency or realigns an existing agency, the agency may need to
develop new NEPA procedures that include categorical exclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision of an existing categorical exclusion can promote
efficiency by clarifying the actions that are covered by an existing
categorical exclusion. For example, a Federal agency may find that an
existing categorical exclusion is not being used because the category
of actions is too narrowly defined. In such cases, the agency should
consider expanding the category of actions. Conversely, if an agency
finds that an existing categorical exclusion includes actions that are
regularly found to require additional NEPA analysis, then the agency
should revise the categorical exclusion to limit the category of
actions included.
III. Substantiating a New Categorical Exclusion
A key issue confronting Federal agencies is how to evaluate whether
a proposed categorical exclusion is appropriate and how to support the
determination that it describes a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment.\5\ The information that supports establishing a
categorical exclusion should demonstrate how the agency determined that
the proposed categorical exclusion does not typically result in
significant environmental effects and set forth the methodology and any
criteria used to define the proposed category of actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 40 CFR 1508.7, 1508.8, and 1508.27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. The Elements of a Categorical Exclusion
The text of a proposed categorical exclusion should clearly define
the category of actions as well as any physical or environmental
factors that would constrain its use. An example of a physical
constraint is a limit on the extent of the action (e.g., miles).
Examples of environmental constraints are limits on where and under
what conditions the categorical exclusion may be used (e.g., particular
seasons in habitat areas). Federal agencies should also consider the
opportunity to develop categorical exclusions that are limited in their
application to regions or areas of the country where it can demonstrate
that the actions do not present significant impacts based on the
similarity of environmental settings.
When developing a categorical exclusion, the Federal agency must
make certain that the proposed category clearly describes all the
actions that should be included. Categorical exclusions should not be
established in a disaggregated or segmented format simply to circumvent
the evaluation of environmental effects required for NEPA compliance
through an EA or EIS.
A Federal agency's NEPA procedures for categorical exclusions must
provide for extraordinary circumstances.\6\ Extraordinary circumstances
function to identify the atypical situation or environmental setting
where an otherwise excluded action merits further analysis and
documentation in an EA or an EIS. For many agencies, their existing
extraordinary circumstances provisions (often presented as a list) will
suffice. However, an agency may develop extraordinary circumstances
that specifically relate to the new categorical exclusion and propose
them in conjunction with the categorical exclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 40 CFR 1508.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Gathering Information To Substantiate a Categorical Exclusion
CEQ guidance generally addresses establishing categorical
exclusions.
Section 1507 of the CEQ regulations directs Federal agencies
when establishing implementing procedures to identify those actions
which experience has indicated will not have a significant
environmental effect and to categorically exclude them * * * \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Council on Environmental Quality, ``Guidance Regarding NEPA
Regulations,'' 48 FR 34263 (July 28, 1983), available at http://www.nepa.gov/
[fxsp0]nepa/regs/1983/1983guid.htm.
Various sources of information relevant to the action and its
environmental effects may be used to substantiate a categorical
exclusion including but not limited to evaluation of implemented
actions, impact demonstration projects, information from professional
staff and expert opinion or scientific analyses, and others'
experiences (benchmarking).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Agencies should be mindful of their obligations under the
Information Quality Act to ensure the quality, objectivity, utility,
and integrity of the information they use or disseminate as the
basis of an agency decision to establish a new categorical
exclusion. Section 515, Public Law 106-554; Office of Management and
Budget Information Quality Guidelines, 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002),
available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/infopoltech.html.
Additional laws and regulations establish obligations that apply or
may apply to the processes of establishing and applying categorical
exclusions, such as the Federal Records Act; these are beyond the
scope of this guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 54818]]
Sources with substantial similarities to the proposed categorical
exclusion will prove to be the most useful. Substantiating information
should account for similarities and differences relative to the
proposed categorical exclusion in terms of the scope of actions,
methods of implementation, and environmental settings. The Federal
agency should maintain an administrative record that includes all
sources of information used and related findings. The agency should
also summarize that information and the related findings in the Federal
Register publication of the proposed categorical exclusion.
1. Evaluating an Agency's Implemented Actions
Evaluation of implemented actions, as used in this guidance, refers
to monitoring and evaluating the environmental effects of the Federal
agency's completed or ongoing actions. The benefit of evaluating an
agency's own actions is that the implementation and operating
procedures are in place and well known. The evaluation should include
data collected before the proposed categorical exclusion is finalized.
Collaboratively monitoring and evaluating implemented actions with non-
federal entities can provide useful information for substantiating a
categorical exclusion.
For a category of actions that the agency analyzed in EAs that
supported Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSIs), evaluations can
validate the predicted environmental effects, and provide strong
support for a proposed categorical exclusion. Evaluation of implemented
actions analyzed in an EIS may also be used to substantiate a
categorical exclusion for activities. An EIS can be used when the
action is minor, subordinate to and not dependent upon other actions.
An EIS can also be used when it analyzes both a large management action
and a smaller, independent action.
Finally, Federal agencies with an Environmental Management System
(EMS) may be able to use data generated through their EMS.\9\ An EMS
may provide a record of environmental performance and help identify
actions that should be included in a proposed categorical exclusion or
proposed extraordinary circumstances.
2. Impact Demonstration Projects
As used in this guidance, the term impact demonstration project
describes a project that includes the NEPA analysis of a proposed
action (for which the agency does not have extensive experience),
implementation of the action, and evaluation of the environmental
effects of the action. The NEPA documentation prepared for the
demonstration project should explain that one of the purposes of the
NEPA process is to generate analyses for substantiating a proposed
categorical exclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ An EMS provides a systematic framework for a Federal agency
to monitor and continually improve its environmental performance
through audits, evaluation of legal and other requirements, and
management reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In designing an impact demonstration project it is particularly
important that the action being evaluated accurately reflect the
category of actions described in the proposed categorical exclusion and
that the action is implemented under similar operational and
environmental conditions as in the proposed categorical exclusion.
Several projects may be useful when environmental conditions vary in
different regions where the categorical exclusion would be used.
3. Professional Staff and Expert Opinions, and Scientific Analyses
A Federal agency may use their professional staff and outside
expert opinions as a valid source of information to substantiate a
categorical exclusion. Those individuals should have special knowledge,
training, experience, or understanding relevant to implementation of
the actions described in the proposed categorical exclusion and the
environmental effects of the action. The agency record should include
such individuals' credentials (e.g., education, training,
certifications, years of related experience).
The use of scientific analyses need not be limited to peer-reviewed
findings and may also include professional opinions, reports, and
research findings. However, because the reliability of scientific
information varies according to its source and the rigor with which it
was developed, the Federal agency remains responsible for determining
whether the information in question reflects accepted knowledge or
findings and addresses the effects of the actions included in the
proposed categorical exclusion.
4. Benchmarking Public and Private Entities' Experiences
As used in this guidance, the term benchmarking means using
information and records from other private and public entities'
experience with similar actions. When evaluating whether it is
appropriate to rely on others' experience, it will be necessary to
demonstrate that the categorically excluded actions and their
environmental effects are comparable to the category of actions in the
proposed categorical exclusion. Benchmarking should consider the
similarities and differences in: (1) Methods of implementing the
actions; (2) characteristics of the actions; (3) frequency of the
actions; (4) applicable standard operating procedures or implementing
guidance; and (5) environmental settings in which the actions take
place. Although an agency cannot simply use another agency's
categorical exclusion for a proposed action, a Federal agency may find
it useful to consider another Federal agency's experience and
supporting information involving categorically excluded actions.
C. Refining a Proposed New Categorical Exclusion
If a proposed categorical exclusion is found to have a potentially
significant effect, the Federal agency should either drop consideration
of the categorical exclusion or consider refining it. Examples include:
limiting or removing actions included in the proposed categorical
exclusion; adding text that places additional constraints on the use of
the categorical exclusion; or refining the applicable extraordinary
circumstances.
Federal agencies may also consider limiting the geographic
applicability of the categorical exclusion. For example, if the
category of actions is typically without significant effects in the
northeastern United States or in a particular set of watersheds, it may
be appropriate to establish a regional or spatially-based categorical
exclusion.
Furthermore, when developing a new categorical exclusion, it may be
helpful or necessary to identify extraordinary circumstances
specifically tailored for that categorical exclusion. Such tailoring
would facilitate identifying atypical circumstances and further ensure
that the use of the categorical exclusion would typically not result in
individual or cumulative significant environmental effects.
IV. Procedures for Establishing a New Categorical Exclusion
The process of establishing or revising an agency's NEPA
procedures, as distinguished from explanatory guidance, is found in 40
CFR 1507.3(a).
Each agency shall consult with the Council while developing its
procedures and before publishing them in the Federal Register for
comment. Agencies with similar procedures should consult with each
other and the
[[Page 54819]]
Council to coordinate their procedures, especially for programs
requesting similar information from applicants. The procedures shall
be adopted only after an opportunity for public review and after
review by the Council for conformity with the Act and these
regulations [40 CFR parts 1500--1508]. The Council shall complete
its review within 30 days. Once in effect they shall be filed with
the Council and made readily available to the public. Agencies are
encouraged to publish explanatory guidance for these regulations and
their own procedures. Agencies shall continue to review their
policies and procedures and in consultation with the Council to
revise them as necessary to ensure full compliance with the purposes
and provisions of the Act.
Federal agencies are encouraged to involve CEQ early in the process
to take advantage of CEQ expertise and assist in coordinating with
other agencies to make the process as efficient as possible. Federal
agencies should consult with CEQ on both the proposed categorical
exclusion and the final categorical exclusion.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 40 CFR 1507.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any proposed categorical exclusion must be made available for
public review and comment. At a minimum, the CEQ regulations require
Federal agencies to publish the proposed categorical exclusion in the
Federal Register and provide a period during which the public may
submit comments on the proposal.\11\ Federal agencies are encouraged to
maintain a file of the comments and responses. To maximize the value of
input from interested parties and assist them in focusing their
comments, the agency should make information supporting the categorical
exclusion available to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 40 CFR 1507.3 and 1506.6(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the public comment period, the Federal agency should
consult with CEQ and review the nature of any substantive comments
received and how they were addressed. For consultation to successfully
conclude, CEQ must provide a written statement that the final proposed
categorical exclusion was developed in conformity with NEPA and the CEQ
regulations. CEQ must complete its review within 30 days of receiving
the final text of the proposed categorical exclusion.
The final categorical exclusion must then be published in the
Federal Register. This publication can serve to satisfy the
requirements that the agency file the categorical exclusion with CEQ,
and make it readily available to the public.
The following recommended and required steps establish a
categorical exclusion as part of the agency NEPA procedures, regardless
of the format the agency uses for its NEPA procedures:\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ NEPA and the CEQ regulations do not require agency NEPA
implementing procedures to be promulgated as regulations through
formal rulemaking; therefore the rulemaking process is not described
herein. Agencies that use rulemaking should ensure they comply with
all appropriate requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Draft proposed categorical exclusion based on experience
indicated in supporting information.
2. Consult with CEQ on draft of proposed categorical exclusion.
3. Consult other Federal agencies with similar procedures,
jurisdiction by law, or special expertise regarding the category of
activities and their effects.
4. Publish notice of proposed categorical exclusion in the Federal
Register for public review and comment.
5. Consider public comments in developing final categorical
exclusion.
6. Consult with CEQ on final categorical exclusion to obtain
determination of conformity with NEPA and the CEQ regulations.
7. Publish final categorical exclusion in the Federal Register.
8. File final categorical exclusion with CEQ.
9. Make final categorical exclusion readily available to the
public.
V. Public Involvement in Establishing a Categorical Exclusion
A NEPA process is not required for establishing or revising agency
NEPA procedures.\13\ However, engaging the public in the environmental
aspects of Federal decisionmaking is a key aspect of NEPA and an
opportunity for public involvement beyond publication in the Federal
Register for review and comment should be considered.\14\ The Federal
Register notice requesting comment on the proposed categorical
exclusion should:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 73 F. Supp. 2d 962,
972-73 (S.D. Ill. 1999), aff'd, 230 F.3d 947, 954-56 (7th Cir.
2000).
\14\ ``Agencies shall: (a) Make diligent efforts to involve the
public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures.'' 40 CFR
1506.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Describe the proposed categorical exclusion and provide
the proposed text.
Summarize the agency rationale and history for its
development and advise the public on how to access the agency's
supporting information and, whenever practicable, include a link to a
Web site containing the supporting information.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Ready access to all supporting information may minimize the
need for members of the public to depend on Freedom of Information
Act requests and enhance the NEPA goals of outreach and disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Define all applicable terms.
Summarize how the proposed categorical exclusion fits into
the existing agency NEPA implementation process.
Explain how extraordinary circumstances, and possibly
other factors such as connected actions and cumulative impacts, may
limit the use of the categorical exclusion.
Explain available avenues for public comment and feedback
on the proposed categorical exclusion.
When establishing a categorical exclusion the Federal agency should
tailor the type and length of the public involvement to the nature of
the proposed category of actions and its perceived environmental
effects. CEQ encourages Federal agencies to engage interested parties
such as public interest groups, Federal NEPA contacts at other
agencies, consultants, and Tribal, State, and local government agencies
to share relevant data, information and concerns. The methods noted in
40 CFR 1506.6 and other public involvement techniques such as focus
groups, meetings, e-mail exchanges, conference calls, and Web-based
forums can be used to stimulate public involvement.
VI. Using an Established Categorical Exclusion
The CEQ regulations do not address documentation or public
involvement for using a categorical exclusion. CEQ guidance states:
``(T)he Council believes that sufficient information will
usually be available during the course of normal project development
to determine the need for an EIS and further that the agency's
administrative record will clearly document the basis for its
decision. Accordingly, the Council strongly discourages procedures
that would require the preparation of additional paperwork to
document that an activity has been categorically excluded.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Council on Environmental Quality, ``Guidance Regarding NEPA
Regulations'', 48 FR 34263 (July 28, 1983), available at http://www.nepa.gov/nepa/regs/1983/1983guid.htm
.
A. Documentation
Each Federal agency should decide if a categorical exclusion
determination warrants preparing additional paperwork and, if so, how
much documentation is appropriate. Documentation is an important
component of any adequate administrative record. The extent of the
documentation should be related to the type of action involved, the
potential for extraordinary circumstances, and compliance with other
laws, regulations, and policies.
A Federal agency may decide to create a concise record for an
action where
[[Page 54820]]
there are reasonable questions regarding the existence of extraordinary
circumstances that may create the potential for the use of the
categorical exclusion to be questioned. If a record is prepared, it
should cite the categorical exclusion used and show that the agency
considered: (1) How the action fits within the class of actions
described in the categorical exclusion, and (2) whether there are any
extraordinary circumstances that would preclude the project or proposed
action from qualifying as a categorically excluded action.
Some courts have required documentation to demonstrate that a
Federal agency has considered extraordinary circumstances in cases
where the absence of extraordinary circumstances is not obvious.\17\
Documenting the use of a categorical exclusion facilitates judicial
review under the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires review to
be based upon a pre-existing record.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Council on Environmental Quality, ``The NEPA Task Force
Report to the Council on Environmental Quality--Modernizing NEPA
Implementation,'' p. 58 (Sept. 2003), available at http://www.ceq.eh.doe.gov/ntf
.
\18\ The agency determination that an action is categorically
excluded may be challenged under the Administrative Procedures Act.
5 U.S.C. 702 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using a categorical exclusion does not absolve Federal agencies
from complying with the requirements of other laws, regulations, and
policies. Documentation created for individual actions or projects may
be necessary to comply with such requirements. When that is the case,
all resource analyses and the results of any consultations or
coordination (e.g., under Endangered Species Act or National Historic
Preservation Act), should be included or incorporated by reference in
the administrative record for the action.
B. Public Involvement
Most Federal agencies do not routinely notify the public when they
use a categorical exclusion to meet their NEPA responsibilities. In
situations where there is a high public interest in an action that will
be categorically excluded, CEQ encourages Federal agencies to involve
the public in some manner (e.g., notification, scoping), particularly
when the public can assist the agency in determining whether a proposal
involves extraordinary circumstances or cumulative impacts.
VII. Periodic Review of Categorical Exclusions
The CEQ regulations direct Federal agencies to periodically review
their policies and procedures; however, they do not describe how such a
review should be conducted.\19\ CEQ encourages Federal agencies to
develop procedures for identifying and revising categorical exclusions
that no longer effectively reflect current environmental circumstances
or where agency procedures, programs, or missions have changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 40 CFR 1506.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Federal agency can keep a record of its experience by tracking
information provided by agency field offices.\20\ In such cases, a
Federal agency review of a categorical exclusion could consist of e-
mails, memos, and letters from field offices that include observations
of the effects of implemented actions, and public input on actions and
their environmental effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Council on Environmental Quality, ``The NEPA Task Force
Report to the Council on Environmental Quality--Modernizing NEPA
Implementation'', p. 63, (Sept. 2003), available at http://www.ceq.eh.doe.gov/ntf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another approach to reviewing existing categorical exclusions is
through a program review. Program reviews can occur at various levels
(e.g., field office, division office, headquarters office) and on
various scales (e.g., geographic location, project type, or as a result
of an interagency agreement). While a Federal agency may choose to
initiate a program review that specifically focuses on categorical
exclusions, it is possible that program reviews with a different focus
may also be able to provide documentation of experience relevant to a
categorical exclusion.
There are many good reasons why Federal agencies should perform
categorical exclusion reviews. They can serve as the impetus for
expanding the categorical exclusion to include actions not previously
categorically excluded. They may help identify additional extraordinary
circumstances. Categorical exclusion reviews may also help a Federal
agency consider the appropriate documentation when using certain
categorical exclusions.
Finally, the rationale and supporting information for establishing
or documenting experience with using a categorical exclusion can be
lost when there are inadequate systems and procedures for recording,
retrieving, and preserving agency documents and administrative records.
Therefore, Federal agencies may benefit from a review of current
practices used for maintaining and preserving such records. Measures to
ensure future availability may include, but not be limited to,
redundant storage systems (e.g., multiple drives, paper copies), and
improvements in the agency electronic and hard copy filing and
retrieval systems.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Council on Environmental Quality, ``The NEPA Task Force
Report to the Council on Environmental Quality--Modernizing NEPA
Implementation'', p. 63, (Sept. 2003), available at http://www.ceq.eh.doe.gov/ntf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public comments are requested on or before October 27, 2006.
Dated: September 14, 2006.
James L. Connaughton,
Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality.
[FR Doc. 06-7756 Filed 9-18-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3125-W6-P