SUPPORTING STATEMENT

for Amended and New Categorical Exclusions, Extraordinary Circumstances,
and Criteria for Actions that Generally Require EISs under 40 CFR Part
6:

“Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and
Assessing the Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions”

Table of Contents

  TOC \f \h \z    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150748106"  Acronyms	  PAGEREF
_Toc150748106 \h  ii  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150748107"  Agency Acronyms and Names	  PAGEREF
_Toc150748107 \h  iii  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150748108"  1.	Introduction	  PAGEREF _Toc150748108
\h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150748109"  2.	Background Information	  PAGEREF
_Toc150748109 \h  3  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150748110"  2(a)	EPA’s Procedures for Implementing
the National Environmental Policy Act	  PAGEREF _Toc150748110 \h  3  

2  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150748111"  (b)	Actions Typically Subject to
EPA’s NEPA Implementing Regulations	  PAGEREF _Toc150748111 \h  4  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150748112"  2(c)	Applicants Typically Subject to
EPA’s NEPA Implementing Regulations	  PAGEREF _Toc150748112 \h  4  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150748113"  2(d)	Environmental Information Required	
 PAGEREF _Toc150748113 \h  5  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150748114"  3.	Reasons for Proposed Amendment	 
PAGEREF _Toc150748114 \h  5  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150748115"  4.	Categories of Actions Eligible for
Categorical Exclusion – Current and Proposed	  PAGEREF _Toc150748115
\h  6  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150748116"  4(a)	Categories of Actions Currently
Eligible for Categorical Exclusion	  PAGEREF _Toc150748116 \h  6  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150748117"  4(b)	Categories of Actions Proposed to
be Eligible for Categorical Exclusion	  PAGEREF _Toc150748117 \h  6  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150748118"  4(c)	Reasons for Proposed Amended and
New Categories of Actions Eligible for Categorical Exclusion	  PAGEREF
_Toc150748118 \h  7  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150748119"  4(c)(1)	Proposed Categories of Actions
Eligible for Categorical Exclusion that Could Involve Extraordinary
Circumstances	  PAGEREF _Toc150748119 \h  8  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150748120"  4(c)(2)	Proposed Categories of Actions
Eligible for Categorical Exclusion that Generally Do Not Involve
Extraordinary Circumstances	  PAGEREF _Toc150748120 \h  10  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150748121"  4(c)(3)	Summary of Proposed Amended and
New Categories of Actions Eligible for Categorical Exclusion	  PAGEREF
_Toc150748121 \h  16  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150748122"  5.	Extraordinary Circumstances –
Current and Proposed	  PAGEREF _Toc150748122 \h  17  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150748123"  5(a)	Current Extraordinary Circumstances
  PAGEREF _Toc150748123 \h  17  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150748124"  5(b)	Proposed Extraordinary
Circumstances	  PAGEREF _Toc150748124 \h  17  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150748125"  5(c)	Reasons for Proposed Amended and
New Extraordinary Circumstances	  PAGEREF _Toc150748125 \h  18  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150748126"  5(c)(1)	Proposed Amended and New
Extraordinary Circumstances	  PAGEREF _Toc150748126 \h  18  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150748127"  5(c)(2)	Summary of Proposed Amended and
New Extraordinary Circumstances	  PAGEREF _Toc150748127 \h  21  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150748128"  6.	Criteria for Actions that Generally
Require EISs  – Current and Proposed	  PAGEREF _Toc150748128 \h  25  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150748129"  6(a)	Current Criteria for Actions that
Generally Require EISs	  PAGEREF _Toc150748129 \h  25  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150748130"  6(b)	Proposed Criteria for Actions that
Generally Require EISs	  PAGEREF _Toc150748130 \h  25  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150748131"  6(c)	Reasons for Proposed Amendments to
the Criteria for Actions that Generally Require EISs		  PAGEREF
_Toc150748131 \h  25  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150748132"  6(c)(1)	Proposed Amendments to the
Criteria for Actions that Generally Require EISs	  PAGEREF _Toc150748132
\h  26  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150748133"  6(c)(2)	Summary of Proposed Amendments
to the Criteria for Actions that Generally Require EISs	  PAGEREF
_Toc150748133 \h  29  

 

Acronyms  TC "Acronyms" \f C \l "1"  

ACM				Asbestos-containing material

CAFOs			Concentrated animal feeding operations

CE				Categorical exclusion

CEQ Regulations		Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations at 40
CFR Parts 1500 through 1508

EA				Environmental assessment

EID				Environmental information document

EIS				Environmental impact statement

EPA				Environmental Protection Agency

FONSI			 	Finding of no significant impact

F/S/L/T laws/regs		Federal, state, local or tribal government laws or
regulations

IAG				Interagency agreement

LBP				Lead-based paint

NEPA				National Environmental Policy Act

NPDES			National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

ORD				Office of Research and Development

Part 6				EPA’s current NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR Part 6

ROD				Record of Decision

STAG				State and Tribal Assistance Grants

Subpart A – General		Subpart A – General provisions in Part 6

Subpart E – WWTCGP	Subpart E – Environmental Review Procedures for
Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Program in Part 6

Subpart F – NPDES		Subpart F – Environmental Review Procedures for
the New Source NPDES Program in Part 6

Subpart G – ORD		Subpart G – Environmental Review Procedures for
Office of Research and Development in Part 6

Subpart H – SWDemo	Subpart H – Environmental Review Procedures for
Solid Waste Demonstration Projects in Part 6

Subpart I – Facilities		Subpart I – Environmental Review Procedures
for EPA Facility Support Activities in Part 6

T & E species			Threatened and endangered species

WWTP			Wastewater Treatment Plant



Agency Acronyms and Names  TC "Agency Acronyms and Names" \f C \l "1"  

AID				Agency for International Development

APHIS				Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services

ARMY			U.S. Army

COE				Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army

DHS				Department of Homeland Security

DOD				Department of Defense

DOE				Department of Energy

FEMA				Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHWA				Federal Highway Administration

HUD				Housing and Urban Development, Department of

NAVY				U.S. Navy

NPS				National Park Service

Postal Service			U.S. Postal Service

TVA				Tennessee Valley Authority

USCG				U.S. Coast Guard

USDA				U.S. Department of Agriculture



1.	Introduction  TC "1.	Introduction" \f C \l "1"  

	The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is amending its
procedures for implementing the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347.  These
amendments include:  (1) consolidating and standardizing the procedural
provisions and requirements of the Agency’s environmental review
process under NEPA; (2) clarifying the general procedures associated
with categorical exclusions, consolidating the categories of actions
subject to categorical exclusion, amending existing and adding new
categorical exclusions, and consolidating and amending existing and
adding new extraordinary circumstances; (3) consolidating and amending
the listing of actions that generally require an environmental impact
statement; (4) clarifying the procedural requirements for consideration
of applicable environmental review laws and executive orders; and (5)
incorporating other proposed revisions consistent with the Council on
Environmental Quality’s regulations (CEQ’s Regulations).

	NEPA establishes the federal government’s national policy for
protection of the environment.  [40 CFR 1500.1(a)]  CEQ’s Regulations
at 40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1508 are applicable to all Federal agencies
for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA, except where
compliance would be inconsistent with other statutory requirements.  [40
CFR 1500.3]  By reason of policy as stated in CEQ’s Regulations,
Federal agencies must, to the fullest extent possible, “[i]mplement
procedures to make the NEPA process more useful to decisionmakers and
the public; to reduce paperwork and the accumulation of extraneous
background data; and to emphasize real environmental issues and
alternatives.”  [40 CFR 1502(b); italics added for emphasis.]  The CEQ
Regulations [40 CFR 1507.3(b)(2)(ii)] require agencies to adopt their
own implementing procedures to supplement CEQ’s NEPA implementing
procedures, including “[s]pecific criteria for and identification of
those typical classes of action ... [w]hich normally do not require
either an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment
(categorical exclusions (§1508.4)).”

 	As part of this rulemaking, the Agency is amending existing and adding
new categories of actions eligible for categorical exclusion. 
Consistent with the CEQ Regulations at § 1508.4, the final rule defines
“categorical exclusion” to mean “a category of actions that does
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment...,” and have been found by EPA to have no such effect. 
The final rule requires that to find that a proposed action is
categorically excluded, EPA’s Responsible Official must determine that
the proposed action fits within a categorical exclusion listed in the
final regulations (see 40 CFR §§ 6.204(a)(1) and 6.204(a)(2)), and the
proposed action does not involve any extraordinary circumstances (see 40
CFR § 6.204(b)).  Some of the new categorical exclusions are
essentially the same as categorical exclusions of other Federal
agencies.  Others are more specific to EPA.  EPA believes the amended
and new categorical exclusions routinely do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.  Use of
both amended and new categorical exclusions is subject to the
categorical exclusion requirements in the final rule, including the
extraordinary circumstances requirements.

	Like its current NEPA implementing regulations, EPA’s final rule
includes extraordinary circumstances.  Consistent with the CEQ
Regulations at § 1508.4, the final rule defines “extraordinary
circumstances” to mean “those circumstances ... that may cause a
significant environmental effect such that an action that otherwise
meets the requirements of a categorical exclusion may not be
categorically excluded” (final rule, § 6.102(b)(6)).  Some are
generally the same as those in EPA’s current NEPA implementing
regulations, some are new, and some are amendments to current
extraordinary circumstances.  The new and amended extraordinary
circumstances also consider the criteria for actions that generally
require environmental impact statements (EISs) and NEPA’s policy
direction to emphasize real environmental issues and alternatives.  The
extraordinary circumstances are consolidated in the proposed rule (e.g.,
final rule, § 6.204(b)).

	The CEQ Regulations require that federal agencies include “[s]pecific
criteria for and identification of those typical classes of action ...
[w]hich normally do require environmental impact statements.”  [40 CFR
1507.3(b)(2)(i)]  As part of the amendment process, EPA is also
consolidating and amending the listing of actions that generally require
an EIS (see final rule, § 6.207(a)(2)).

	The purpose of this Supporting Statement document is to provide the
reasons for the amended and new categorical exclusions, extraordinary
circumstances, and criteria for actions that generally require an EIS
under EPA’s NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR Part 6 (Part 6). 
The following three items provide the general reasons for the amended
and new categorical exclusions, extraordinary circumstances, and
criteria for actions that generally require an EIS included in the final
rule.  Subsequent sections of this Supporting Statement provide specific
reasons for each of these.

	(1) Consolidation and standardization of the procedural provisions and
requirements of the Agency’s environmental review process under NEPA. 
The final regulations consolidate and standardize the environmental
review process applicable to all EPA actions subject to NEPA, including
those actions now specifically addressed in the current regulations and
other actions subject to NEPA but not specifically addressed in the
current regulations (e.g., certain grants awarded for special projects
authorized by Congress through the Agency’s annual Appropriations
Act).

	(2) Clarify the general procedures associated with categorical
exclusions, consolidate the categories of actions subject to categorical
exclusion, amend existing and add new categorical exclusions, and
consolidate and amend existing and add new extraordinary circumstances. 
Currently, EPA’s NEPA implementing regulations include general and, by
subpart, program-specific categorical exclusions and extraordinary
circumstances.  The final regulations consolidate the categorical
exclusions and extraordinary circumstances in a single location.  Thus,
the procedures for determining if a proposed action fits within a
categorical exclusion or involves any extraordinary circumstances would
be the same for all EPA actions subject to NEPA.  Categorically excluded
actions and the extraordinary circumstances are consolidated,
respectively, into lists applicable to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.

	(3) Consolidate and amend the listing of actions that generally require
an environmental impact statement.  Currently, some subparts of EPA’s
NEPA implementing regulations list actions that generally require EISs,
and one also lists specific actions that generally require environmental
assessments (EAs).  The final regulations consolidate and amend the
criteria for actions that generally require EISs.  These criteria for
actions that generally require EISs in the proposed regulations would be
applicable to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.

2.	Background Information  TC "2.	Background Information" \f C \l "1"  

	2(a)	EPA’s Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental
Policy Act  TC "2(a)	EPA’s Procedures for Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act" \f C \l "2"  .  Currently, EPA’s NEPA
implementing regulations apply, by subpart, to specific types of EPA
actions.  For example, Subpart E applies to wastewater treatment
construction grants under Title II of the Clean Water Act, and Subpart F
applies to EPA’s environmental review process for issuance of new
source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system (NPDES) permits. 
The proposed regulations would consolidate and standardize the
environmental review process applicable to all EPA actions subject to
NEPA, including those actions now specifically addressed in the current
regulations and other actions subject to NEPA but not specifically
addressed in the current regulations (e.g., certain EPA grant awards for
special projects authorized by Congress through the Agency’s annual
Appropriations Act, including grants for the Border Environmental
Cooperation Commission/Border Environmental Infrastructure Fund and
Colonias grant projects).  As with EPA’s current regulations, the
final regulations supplement and are to be used in conjunction with the
government-wide CEQ NEPA Regulations.

	As with EPA’s current NEPA implementing regulations, compliance with
the final NEPA regulations is the responsibility of EPA’s Responsible
Officials.  For applicant-proposed actions, certain procedures in the
final NEPA regulations require those defined in the final regulations as
applicants (that is, grantees and permit applicants) to provide
environmental information for EPA’s use in its environmental review
process.

	2(b)	Actions Typically Subject to EPA’s NEPA Implementing Regulations
 TC "(b)	Actions Typically Subject to EPA’s NEPA Implementing
Regulations" \f C \l "2"  .  EPA’s NEPA implementing regulations apply
to the actions of EPA that are subject to NEPA in order to ensure that
environmental information is available to the Agency’s decision-makers
and the public before decisions are made and before actions are taken. 
This includes actions such as the award of wastewater treatment
construction grants under Title II of the Clean Water Act, EPA’s
issuance of new source NPDES permits under Section 402 of the Clean
Water Act, certain research and development projects, development and
issuance of regulations, EPA actions involving renovations at or new
construction of EPA facilities, and certain grants awarded for special
projects authorized by Congress through the Agency’s annual
Appropriations Act.  Applicant-proposed actions subject to NEPA may
include any of these except EPA actions for construction of special
purpose facilities or facility renovations of EPA facilities.

	2(c)	Applicants Typically Subject to EPA’s NEPA Implementing
Regulations  TC "2(c)	Applicants Typically Subject to EPA’s NEPA
Implementing Regulations" \f C \l "2"  .  Those subject to the final
rule include EPA employees who must comply with NEPA, and certain grant
and permit applicants who must submit environmental information
documentation to EPA for their proposed projects.  EPA’s NEPA
implementing regulations generally apply to two types of applicants:

Grant applicants applying to EPA for funding of special projects
authorized by Congress through the Agency’s annual Appropriations Act.
 These applicants are generally governmental jurisdictions.

Permit applicants applying to EPA for issuance of new source NPDES
permits under §402 of the CWA.  EPA issues new source NPDES permits
only in states and U.S. territories that have not assumed authority for
this program (i.e., New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Puerto Rico, New
Mexico, Oklahoma (for concentrated animal feeding operations only),
Alaska, and Idaho), the District of Columbia, off-shore waters (e.g.,
the inter-continental shelf for Texas, all outer-continental shelf
areas, all deep-water port areas), and on federally-recognized Indian
tribal lands.  These permit applicants are not limited to a specific
business sector.  EPA has permitted, and anticipates continued permit
activity, with projects typically involving:  oil and gas extraction
from off-shore waters, hardrock mining (recently gold, silver, lead and
zinc, and copper), dairy cattle and milk production, seafood processing,
and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), including poultry,
cattle, hogs and pigs.

	2(d)	Environmental Information Required  TC "2(d)	Environmental
Information Required" \f C \l "2"  .  For EPA actions subject to NEPA,
the Responsible Official must conduct an environmental review of the
action at the earliest practicable point in EPA’s decision-making
process.  The Responsible Official may determine that the proposed
action does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect
on the human environment and may, therefore, be categorically excluded
from further NEPA review.  If the proposed action is not categorically
excluded, the Responsible Official may prepare an EA in order to
determine whether to prepare an EIS or a finding of no significant
impact (FONSI).  The Responsible Official prepares an EIS if the
proposed action will have a significant effect on the human environment.
 For EPA actions subject to NEPA that are based on applicant proposals,
the Responsible Official may gather the information and prepare the NEPA
documents without assistance from the applicant, or have the applicant
prepare an environmental information document (EID), or a draft EA and
supporting documents, or implement a third-party agreement with the
applicant.  The level of NEPA documentation and the project-specific
information the Responsible Official needs for decision-making is
determined by the potential for environmental impact rather than the
dollar amount of the project or whether the applicant is a grantee or
permit applicant.

3.	Reasons for Amendment  TC "3.	Reasons for Proposed Amendment" \f C \l
"1"  

	EPA is consolidating and standardizing the environmental review process
applicable to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.  As part of this process,
EPA is consolidating the categories of actions eligible for categorical
exclusion, and amending existing and adding new categorical exclusions. 
CEQ’s Regulations state that Federal agencies must implement NEPA
procedures, in part, “to reduce paperwork and the accumulation of
extraneous background data; and to emphasize real environmental issues
and alternatives.”  [40 CFR 1500.2(b)]  EPA believes that amending
current and identifying new categorical exclusions meets the intent of
this NEPA policy as paperwork is reduced or eliminated for EPA’s
Responsible Officials and applicants.  Likewise, EPA’s attention will
be focused on proposed actions with real environmental issues and the
associated analysis of alternatives, including mitigation measures, that
will eliminate or reduce the project’s environmental impacts.  The
amendments in EPA’s proposed rule also include amended and new
extraordinary circumstances and an amended listing of actions that
generally require an EIS.

4.	Categories of Actions Eligible for Categorical Exclusion – Current
and New  TC "4.	Categories of Actions Eligible for Categorical Exclusion
– Current and New" \f C \l "1"  

	4(a)	Categories of Actions Currently Eligible for Categorical Exclusion
 TC "4(a)	Categories of Actions Currently Eligible for Categorical
Exclusion" \f C \l "2"  .  EPA’s current NEPA implementing regulations
include a general provision for categorical exclusions in Subpart A –
General, at Section 6.107(d).  This section lists one specific
categorical exclusion (CE) at § 6.107(d)(1), and provides that CEs may
also be listed in the program-specific subparts (§ 6.107(d)(2)), or
that new categories of excluded actions may be established per the
provisions in the current regulations (§ 6.107(d)(3)).  Appendix 2-1
lists this one specific categorical exclusion.

	Subparts E through I of EPA’s current NEPA implementing regulations
establish specific categories of actions eligible for categorical
exclusion.  Appendices 2-2 through 2-6 list the general provision and
any specific provisions for categorical exclusions in each of these
subparts.  All five of these subparts reference the applicability of
§6.107(d), and thus the applicability of §6.107(d)(1), as noted in
Appendices 2-2 through 2-6.  In addition, Subpart E – Environmental
Review Procedures for Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Program
(Subpart E – WWTCGP) lists three additional categories of actions
eligible for categorical exclusion, and Subpart G – Environmental
Review Procedures for Office of Research and Development (Subpart G –
ORD) lists four additional categories of actions eligible for
categorical exclusion.  These are listed in Appendices 2-2 and 2-4,
respectively.

	In summary, EPA’s current NEPA implementing regulations include one
general and seven specific categories of actions eligible for
categorical exclusion applicable to particular types of actions.

	4(b)	New Categories of Actions Eligible for Categorical Exclusion  TC
"4(b)	New Categories of Actions Eligible for Categorical Exclusion" \f C
\l "2"  .  The final regulations consolidate and standardize the
environmental review process applicable to all EPA actions subject to
NEPA, including those actions now specifically addressed in the current
regulations and other actions subject to NEPA but not specifically
addressed in the current regulations.  Actions eligible for categorical
exclusion would be consolidated into listings applicable to all EPA
actions subject to NEPA.

	The final rule provides that a proposed action is categorically
excluded when the action fits within a category of action that is
eligible for exclusion, and the proposed action does not involve any
extraordinary circumstances.  EPA’s final rule identifies 15
categories of action eligible for categorical exclusion.  These are
included in two listings.  The first listing includes five categories of
actions eligible for categorical exclusion that are more likely to
involve extraordinary circumstances and require the EPA Responsible
Official to document a determination that a categorical exclusion
applies (see final rule § 6.204(a)(1)).  The second listing includes 10
categories of actions eligible for categorical exclusion that are
primarily administrative in nature, that EPA believes generally do not
involve extraordinary circumstances and do not require the EPA
Responsible Official to document a determination that a categorical
exclusion applies.  In any case, even for these categorical exclusions,
the Responsible Official is required to ensure that none of the
extraordinary circumstances applies to the action.  These 15 categories
of action that are eligible for exclusion are listed in Appendix 3 and
in the final rule at § 6.204(a)(1) and (a)(2).

	4(c)	Reasons for Amended and New Categories of Actions Eligible for
Categorical Exclusion  TC "4(c)	Reasons for Amended and New Categories
of Actions Eligible for Categorical Exclusion" \f C \l "2"  .  Certain
of the categorical exclusions in EPA’s final rule are substantially
the same as those in EPA’s current Part 6 rule.  EPA is using this
rule-making process to amend these CEs to assure they are applicable to
all EPA actions subject to NEPA, and to update these CEs to clarify
their applicability, including their applicability to EPA actions
relating to contracts or assistance agreements.

	EPA is also using this rule-making process as an opportunity to add new
categories of actions eligible for categorical exclusion.  These new CEs
are generally for actions involving the administrative procedures of the
Agency and most are similar to categories of actions eligible for
categorical exclusion in other federal agencies as further discussed
below.

	Appendix 3 lists EPA’s categories of actions that are eligible for
categorical exclusion and includes a notation regarding each CE’s
relationship to categorical exclusions in EPA’s current NEPA
implementing regulations.  Appendix 3 also notes the nature of the
amendment to the CE (e.g, assure applicability to all EPA actions
subject to NEPA, clarify the conditions of applicability) or that it is
a new CE.

	The Council on Environmental Quality notes that federal agency
administrative records prepared to support categorical exclusions may
include documentation of:  professional staff and expert opinions;
research study results; past NEPA action records; and similar
categorical exclusion actions by other agencies.  EPA is basing its
determinations that the categories of actions eligible for categorical
exclusion in its final rule, including amendments to existing CEs and
the new CEs, primarily on EPA’s past NEPA action records, similar
categorical exclusion actions by other agencies, and opinion of the
Agency staff.

		4(c)(1)	New Categories of Actions Eligible for Categorical Exclusion
that Could Involve Extraordinary Circumstances  TC "4(c)(1)	New
Categories of Actions Eligible for Categorical Exclusion that Could
Involve Extraordinary Circumstances" \f C \l "3"    The first three CEs
listed in Appendix 3 are substantially the same as those in EPA’s
current Part 6 rule.  The next two are new CEs.  These five CEs are more
likely to involve extraordinary circumstances and require the EPA
Responsible Official to document that a categorical exclusion applies. 
The first three CEs are listed below with notable amending language
underlined, and the relationship of each to CEs in the current Part 6
rule listed with reasons for amending language.  If other federal
agencies have similar categories of actions eligible for categorical
exclusion, these references are listed (see Acronyms for agency names). 
The fifth and sixth are new CEs that would require the Responsible
Official to document there are no extraordinary circumstances.

	§6.204(a)(1)(i):  Actions at EPA owned or operated facilities
involving routine facility maintenance, repair, and grounds-keeping;
minor rehabilitation, restoration, renovation, or revitalization of
existing facilities; functional replacement of equipment, acquisition
and installation of equipment, or construction of new minor ancillary
facilities adjacent to or on the same property as existing facilities.

	For many years, EPA has relied on the existing CE at 40 CFR Part
6.107(d)(1) for routine maintenance and repair activities at facilities
it owns and operates.  That existing CE has been used for all of the
activities covered by this refined CE, including grounds keeping, minor
rehabilitation, restoration, and renovation and rehabilitation of
existing facilities, as well as routine replacement of equipment, the
acquisition and installation of equipment, and construction of new minor
ancillary facilities.  Based on EPA’s long-term use of this CE, and
our monitoring of the actions to ensure that the individual CEs were
valid, EPA has determined that the environmental impacts of such actions
are not significant.  This new CE is a refinement of 40 CFR Part
6.107(d)(1) to include those actions at EPA facilities that have been
determined to not cause individual or cumulative significant impacts.  

Moreover, other federal agencies have CEs for similar actions – see
below.  Based on a review of the activities covered by the other
agencies’ CEs, EPA has determined that it would be conducting similar
activities under similar circumstances with similar environmental
impacts.  Accordingly, EPA has concluded that its activities under this
CE would not result in significant environmental impacts and, therefore,
justify this CE.

APHIS, 7 CFR 372.5(c)(4)

ARMY, 32 CFR 651.30, Appendix B, Section II(g)(1)

COE, 33 CFR 230(9)(b) and (d)

DHS, Management Directive 5100.1, Section 3.3,Table 1, D1-D4   [69 FR
33043-33066]

DOD, 32 CFR 989, Appendix B, A2.3.8-13

DOE, 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B, B1.3

FEMA, 44 CFR 10.8(d)(2)(x), (xv) and (xvi)

FHWA, 23 CFR 771.117(c)(2), (6), (7), (8), (12) and (14)

HUD, 24, CFR 50.19(b)(5)

NAVY, 32 CFR 775.6(f)(6)-(9)

TVA, Code IX Environmental Quality (1) [44 FR 54513]

USCG, Coast Guard Instruction M16475.1c, Section 2.B.2, Fig. 2-1, 5, 6
and 9

USDA, 7 CFR 1794.22(b)(1)-(7)

	§6.204(a)(1)(ii):  Actions relating to existing infrastructure systems
(such as sewer systems; drinking water supply systems; and stormwater
systems, including combined sewer overflow systems) that involve minor
upgrading, or minor expansion of system capacity, or rehabilitation
(including functional replacement) of the existing system and system
components (such as the sewer collection network and treatment system;
the system to collect, treat, store and distribute drinking water; and
stormwater systems, including combined sewer overflow systems) or
construction of new minor ancillary facilities adjacent to or on the
same property as existing facilities.  This category does not include
actions that:  involve new of relocated discharges to surface or ground
water; will likely result in the substantial increase in the volume or
loading of pollutants to the receiving water; will provide capacity to
serve a population 30% greater that the existing population or is not
supported by the state, or other regional growth plan or strategy; or
directly or indirectly involve or relate to upgrading or extending
infrastructure systems primarily for the purposes of future development.

	Substantially the same as the existing CE at 40 CFR Part 6.505(b)(2)
for minor upgrading and expansion of wasterwater treatment facilities in
sewered communities under Section 201 of the Clean Water Act.  The CE
has been refined to cover grants for similar actions authorized by
Congress under EPA’s Appropriations Acts.  Additionally, the CE has
been expanded to cover minor upgrades and expansions of water supply and
stormwater management systems.  EPA has issued many FONSI/EAs for the
additional types of projects that are proposed to be added to the scope
of the CE – see Appendix 4.  EPA’s experience with these types of
actions is that, with the restrictions and limitations contained within
the CE, they do not result in significant individual or cumulative
environmental impacts.  

Lastly, the refined CE does not include the population restriction in
the current CE (i.e., “communities of less than 10,000 persons”). 
Based on EPA’s experience with these types of projects, with the
restrictions and limitations imposed by the CE, these types of projects 
do not cause significant impacts regardless of the community’s size.  

	§6.204(a)(1)(iii):  Actions in unsewered communities involving the
replacement of existing on site systems with similar technologies,
providing the new on site systems do not result in substantial increases
in the volume of discharge or the loadings of pollutants from existing
sources, or relocate existing discharge.

	Substantially the same as the existing CE at 40 CFR Part 6.505(b)(3)
for grants for on-site wastewater treatment systems under Section 201 of
the Clean Water Act.  The CE has been ; refined to include grants  for
on-site technologies that are  authorized by Congress through the
Agency’s Appropriations Acts. The refined  CE does not include the
population restriction in the current CE (i.e., “communities of less
than 10,000 persons”).  Based on EPA’s experience with these types
of projects, replacing existing on-site systems subject to the
restriction limiting the discharge of pollutants  does not  cause
significant impacts regardless of the community’s size. 

	

§6.204(a)(1)(iv): Actions involving re-issuance of an NPDES permit for
a new source providing the conclusions of the original NEPA document are
still valid (including the appropriate mitigation), there will be no
degradation of the receiving waters, and the permit conditions do not
change or are more environmentally protective.

	New CE.  Decisions to reissue new source NPDES permits are based on: 
1) an evaluation of the conclusions of the original NEPA decision
document to determine whether they are still correct; and 2) the current
quality of the receiving waters to determine whether more stringent
permit conditions are needed to maintain water quality.  EPA’s
experience with such actions is that where:  1)  the original NEPA
document concluded that the action would not cause significant
environmental effects: 2) that conclusion is reviewed and determined to
still be valid; 3) it is  determined that the continuation of the
discharge would not degrade the receiving waters;  and 4) the permit
conditions do not change or are more environmentally protective (i.e.,
are more stringent solely because of the establishment of a new water
quality standard, and not the degradation of the receiving water), the
reissuance of the respective new source NPDES permit does not pose the
potential for significant environmental impacts.  Further, confirmation
that there are no extraordinary circumstances would satisfy a CE
determination.  EPA has documented the following projects with
EAs/FONSIs that justify this proposed category of actions eligible for
categorical exclusion:

Texas Territorial Seas, General Permit, reissued January 11, 2005, with
more stringent conditions

Outer Continental Shelf, General Permit, reissued October 1, 2004, with
more stringent conditions

Alaska Mechanical Placer Mining, General Permit (AKG-37-0000), reissued
2000 with more stringent conditions

Alaska Mechanical Placer Mining, General Permit (AKG-37-0000), reissued
2005 with no change in permit conditions

Idaho Aquaculture General Permit, reissued in 2006 with more stringent
conditions

Pribilofs Seafood General Permit, reissued in 2006 with more stringent
conditions

	§6.204(a)(1)(v): Actions for award of grants authorized by Congress
under EPA’s annual Appropriations Act that are solely for
reimbursement of the costs of a project that was completed prior to the
date the appropriation was enacted.

	New CE.  It is EPA's opinion that these actions for award of funds do
not pose the potential for significant environmental impacts because the
project for which the grant is being awarded is complete.  Nevertheless,
EPA has discretion to award, or not awards, these grants; therefore,
there is value in some environmental evaluation.  Specifically they
should be evaluated to determine whether extraordinary circumstances
associated with the completed project exist, which could affect EPA’s
decision to award the grant.  In addition, EPA can condition grants to
ensure the implementation of appropriate mitigation.

		4(c)(2)	 Categories of Actions Eligible for Categorical Exclusion that
Generally Do Not Involve Extraordinary Circumstances  TC "4(c)(2)
Categories of Actions Eligible for Categorical Exclusion that Generally
Do Not Involve Extraordinary Circumstances" \f C \l "3"  .   EPA
believes the remaining 10 CEs listed in Appendix 3 do not generally
involve extraordinary circumstances and, under EPA’s final rule, do
not require the EPA Responsible Official to document that a categorical
exclusion applies.  One of these CEs is substantially the same as §
6.704(b)(4) in EPA’s current Part 6 rule with amending language as
discussed below.  The other 9 CEs are new categories of actions eligible
for categorical exclusion, one of which incorporates three of the CEs in
the current Part 6 rule.  The new CEs are for actions generally
involving the administrative procedures of the Agency.  Most are similar
to categories of actions eligible for categorical exclusion by other
federal agencies as further discussed below, and some are also based on
EPA’s view that they are administrative in nature and generally do not
involve extraordinary circumstances.  In any case, even for these
categorical exclusions, the Responsible Official is required to ensure
that none of the extraordinary circumstances applies to the action. 
These 10 CEs are listed below, including references to other federal
agencies with similar categories of actions eligible for categorical
exclusion (see Acronyms for agency names).

	§6.204(a)(2)(i): Procedural, ministerial, administrative, financial,
personnel, and management actions necessary to support the normal
conduct of EPA business.

	New CE.  Other federal agencies have CEs for similar actions – see
below.  Based on a review of the activities covered by the other
agencies’ CEs, EPA has determined that it would be conducting similar
activities under similar circumstances, and with similar environmental
impacts.  Accordingly, EPA has concluded that its activities under this
CE would not result in significant environmental impacts and are,
therefore, eligible for categorical exclusion.

ARMY, 32 CFR 651.30, Appendix B, Section II(b)(14)

COE, 33 CFR 230(9)(a)

DHS, Management Directive 5100.1, Section 3.3, Table 1, A1   [69 FR
33043-33066]

DOD, 32 CFR 989, Appendix B, A2.3.4; A2.3.21-23

DOE, 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix A, A1 and A13

FEMA, 44 CFR 108(d)(2)(i)

HUD, 24 CFR 50.19(b)(3) and (13)

NAVY, 32 CFR 775.6(f)(1)

NPS, Director’s Order 12, Section 3.3, A-D

Postal Service, 39 CFR 775.6(b)(1) and (2)

USCG, Coast Guard Instruction M16475.1c, Section 2.B.2, Figure 2-1, 1

USDA, 4 CFR 1b.3(a)(1)

	§6.204(a)(2)(ii): Acquisition actions (compliant with applicable
procedures for sustainable or “green” procurement) and contracting
actions necessary to support the normal conduct of EPA business.

	New CE.  Other federal agencies have CEs for similar actions – see
below.  Based on a review of the activities covered by the other
agencies’ CEs, EPA has determined that it would be conducting similar
activities with similar environmental impacts.  Accordingly, EPA has
concluded that its activities under this CE would not result in
significant environmental impacts and are, therefore, eligible for
categorical exclusion.

ARMY, 32 CFR 651.30, Appendix B, Section II(e)(1)

COE, 33 CFR 230(9)(a)	

DHS, Management Directive 5100.1, Section 3.3, Table 1, A6 and A7  [69
FR 33043-33066]

DOD, 32 CFR 989, Appendix B, A2.3.1 and 2

DOE, 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix A, A2, A3 and A8

FEMA, 44 CFR 108(d)(2)(vi)

HUD, 24 CFR 50.19(b)(6) and (7)

NAVY, 32 CFR 775.6(f)(10)

Postal Service, 39 CFR 775.6(b)(3)

TVA, Code IX Environmental Quality (4) [44 FR 54513]

USCG, Coast Guard Instruction M16475.1c, Section 2.B.2, Figure 2-1, 2

	

	§6.204(a)(2)(iii): Actions involving information collection,
dissemination, or exchange; planning; monitoring and sample collection
wherein no significant alteration of existing ambient conditions occurs;
educational and training programs; literature searches and studies;
computer studies and activities; research and analytical activities;
development of compliance assistance tools; and architectural and
engineering studies.  These actions include those conducted directly by
EPA and EPA actions relating to contracts or assistance agreements
involving such actions.

	New CE with underlined language substantially the same as current Part
6, §6.704(b)(1) through (3) for research and development actions;
amended to ensure applicability to all EPA actions subject to NEPA,
including STAG grant actions.  Moreover, other federal agencies have CEs
for similar actions – see below.  Based on a review of the activities
covered by the other agencies’ CEs, EPA has determined that it would
be conducting similar activities with similar environmental impacts. 
Accordingly, EPA has concluded that its activities under this CE would
not result in significant environmental impacts and are, therefore,
eligible for categorical exclusion.

AID, 22 CFR 216.2(c)(2)(ii)

APHIS, 7 CFR 372.5(c)(1)

ARMY, 32 CFR 651.30, Appendix B, Section II(b)(6) and (10); (d)(4)

COE, 33 CFR 230(9)(c) 

DHS, Management Directive 5100.1, Section 3.3, Table 1, A4   [69 FR
33043-33066]

DOD, 32 CFR 989, Appendix B, A2.3.3, 24 and 35

DOE, 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, App. A, A9 and A14; App. B, B3.3

FEMA, 44 CFR 108(d)(2)(iii) and (iv)

HUD, 24 CFR 50.19(b)(1), (2), (4), (8) and (9)

NAVY, 32 CFR 775.6(f)(5)

NPS, Director’s Order 12, Section 3.3, H

Postal Service, 39 CFR 775.6(b)(4) and (5)

TVA, Code IX Environmental Quality (3) [44 FR 54513]

USCG, Coast Guard Instruction M16475.1c, Section 2.B.2, Fig. 2-1, 21 and
26

USDA, 7 CFR 1b.3(3) and (4)

	§6.204(a)(2)(iv): Actions relating to or conducted completely within a
permanent, existing contained facility, such as a laboratory, or other
enclosed building, provided that reliable and scientifically-sound
methods are used to appropriately dispose of wastes and safeguards exist
to prevent hazardous, toxic and radioactive materials in excess of
allowable limits from entering the environment.  Where such activities
are conducted at laboratories, the Lab Director or other appropriate
official must certify in writing that the laboratory follows good
laboratory practices and adheres to all applicable federal, state, local
and federally-recognized Indian tribal laws and regulations.  This
category does not include activities related to construction and/or
demolition within the facility (see proposed rule,  § 6.204(a)(1)(i)).

	Substantially same as current Part 6, § 6.704(b)(4) for research and
development actions; amended to assure applicability to all EPA actions
subject to NEPA.  Underlined language added to update and clarify the
conditions applicable to this category of actions eligible for
exclusion, including promulgated federal, state, local and
“federally-recognized Indian tribal” laws and regulations. 

Additionally, other federal agencies have CEs for similar actions –
see below.  Based on a review of the activities covered by the other
agencies’ CEs, EPA has determined that it would be conducting similar
activities, under similar circumstances, and with similar environmental
impacts.  Accordingly, EPA has concluded that its activities under this
CE would not result in significant environmental impacts and are,
therefore, eligible for categorical exclusion. 

APHIS, 7 CFR 372.5(c)(2)

ARMY, 32 CFR 651.30, Appendix B, Section II(b)(4) and (h)(5)

DHS, Management Directive 5100.1, Section 3.3, Table 1, B1 and B3  [69
FR 33043-33066]

DOD, 32 CFR 989, Appendix B, A2.3.27

USCG, Coast Guard Instruction M16475.1c, Section 2.B.2, Figure 2-1, 28

	§6.204(a)(2)(v): Actions involving emergency preparedness planning and
training activities.

	New CE.  Other federal agencies have CEs for similar actions – see
below.  Based on a review of the activities covered by the other
agencies’ CEs, EPA has determined that it would be conducting similar
activities with similar environmental impacts.  Accordingly, EPA has
concluded that its activities under this CE would not result in
significant environmental impacts and are, therefore, eligible for
categorical exclusion. 

ARMY, 32 CFR 651.30, Appendix B, Section II(b)(2)

DHS, Management Directive 5100.1, Section 3.3, Table 1, A5  [69 FR
33043-33066]

DOE, 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix A, A12 and Appendix B, B1.2

FEMA, 44 CFR 10.8(d)(2)(v)

Postal Service, 39 CFR 775.6(b)(10)

USCG, Coast Guard Instruction M16475.1c, Section 2.B.2, Figure 2-1,
18-20

	§6.204(a)(2)(vi): Actions involving the acquisition, transfer, lease,
disposition, or closure of existing permanent structures, land,
equipment, materials or personal property provided that the property: 
has been used solely for office functions; has never been used for
laboratory purposes by any party; does not require site remediation; and
will be used in essentially the same manner such that the type and
magnitude of the impacts will not change substantially.  This category
does not include activities related to construction and/or demolition of
structures on the property (see proposed rule, §6.204(a)(1)(i)).

	New CE.  EPA has documented the following project with an EA/FONSI that
helps justify that this type of action does not cause significant
impacts.

Region 1 – Environmental Assessment Property Transfer of US EPA Region
1 New England Regional Laboratory, Lexington, Massachusetts, Final
EA/FONSI, April 2001

	Additionally, other federal agencies have CEs for similar actions –
see below.  Based on a review of the activities covered by the other
agencies’ CEs, EPA has determined that it would be conducting similar
activities under similar circumstances, and with similar environmental
impacts.  Accordingly, EPA has concluded that its activities under this
CE would not result in significant environmental impacts and are,
therefore, eligible for categorical exclusion.   

ARMY, 32 CFR 651.30, Appendix B, Section II(f)(1) and (3)

COE, 33 CFR 230(9)(e)-(r)

DHS, Management Directive 5100.1, Section 3.3, Table 1, C1-C5 	 [69 FR
33043-33066]

DOD, 32 CFR 989, Appendix B, A2.3.15-19

DOE, 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix A, A7

FEMA, 44 CFR 10.8(d)(2)(viii) and (xvii)

FHWA, 23 CFR 771.117(c)(5) and (10)

NAVY, 32 CFR 775.6(f)(19)

USCG, Coast Guard Instruction M16475.1c, Section 2.B.2, Figure 2-1, 15

USDA, 7 CFR 1794.22(a)(11)

	§6.204(a)(2)(vii): Actions involving providing technical advice to
federal agencies, state or local governments, federally-recognized
Indian tribes, foreign governments, or public or private entities.

	New CE.  Other federal agencies with similar provisions for CE:

AID, 22 CFR 216.2(c)(2)(i) and (iii)

DHS, Management Directive 5100.1, Section 3.3, Table 1, B4  [69 FR
33043-33066]

DOE, 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix A, A11

FHWA, 23 CFR 771.117(c)(16)

NPS, Director’s Order 12, Section 3.3, K

TVA, Code IX Environmental Quality (2) [44 FR 54513]

USDA, 7 CFR 1b.3(a)(6)

	§6.204(a)(2)(viii): Actions involving approval of EPA participation in
international “umbrella” agreements for cooperation in
environmental-related activities that would not commit the United States
to any specific projects or actions.

	New CE.  Other federal agencies have CEs for similar actions – see
below.  Based on a review of the activities covered by the other
agencies’ CEs, EPA has determined that it would be conducting similar
activities under similar circumstances, and with similar environmental
impacts.  Accordingly, EPA has concluded that its activities under this
CE would not result in significant environmental impacts and are,
therefore, eligible for categorical exclusion.

   

AID, 22 CFR 216.2(c)(2)(vi)

DOE, 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix A, A15

USDA, 7 CFR 1b.3(a)(7)

	§6.204(a)(2)(ix): Actions involving containment or removal and
disposal of asbestos-containing material or lead-based paint from EPA
owned or operated facilities when undertaken in accordance with
applicable regulations.

	New CE.  Based on EPA’s experience with these types of actions as
documented in the following EA/FONSIs, these actions do not result in
individual or cumulative significant impacts. Therefore, these actions
are eligible for categorical exclusion.

EPA Region 2 – Environmental Assessment for Property Transfer of US
EPA’s Edison Facility, Building 228 Firehouse (Former Raritan
Arsenal), Final EA/FNSI, October 1998 (addresses asbestos-containing
material (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP) abatement)

Region 8 – Environmental Assessment for New US EPA Region 8
Headquarters Building, GSA-authored EA/FNSI, June 2004 (addresses ACM
and LBP abatement)

Region 10 – Environmental Assessment US EPA Region 10 Manchester
Laboratory Facility, Laboratory Modernization and Laboratory Wing
Addition, Final 	EA/FNSI, December 2000 (addresses ACM and LBP
abatement)

Region 1 – Environmental Assessment Property Transfer of US EPA Region
1 New England Regional Laboratory, Lexington, Massachusetts, Final
EA/FNSI, April 2001 (assessment included consideration of need for ACM
and LBP abatement)

Region 7 – Environmental Assessment for Closure and Property Transfer
of US  EPA Region 7 Laboratory, 25 Funston Road, Kansas City, Kansas,
Final EA/FNSI, February 2003 (assessment included consideration of need
for ACM abatement)

	Additionally, other federal agencies have CEs for similar actions –
see below.  Based on a review of the activities covered by the other
agencies’ CEs, EPA has determined that it would be conducting similar
activities, under similar circumstances, and with similar environmental
impacts.  Accordingly, EPA has concluded that its activities under this
CE would not result in significant environmental impacts and are,
therefore, eligible for categorical exclusion.

ARMY, 32 CFR 651.30, Appendix B, Section II(b)(9)

DOE, 10 CFR 1021, Appendix B, B1.16

	§6.204(a)(2)(x): Actions involving new source NPDES permit
modifications that make only technical corrections to the NPDES permit
(such as correcting typographical errors) that do not result in a change
in environmental impacts or conditions.

	New CE.  It is EPA’s opinion that these actions are administrative in
nature and do not pose the potential for environmental impacts.  EPA
further believes this new CE does not generally involve extraordinary
circumstances and, therefore, does not require EPA’s Responsible
Official to document that this categorical exclusion applies to these
types of Agency activities.

		4(c)(3)	Summary of Amended and New Categories of Actions Eligible for
Categorical Exclusion  TC "4(c)(3)	Summary of Amended and New Categories
of Actions Eligible for Categorical Exclusion" \f C \l "3"  .  The
purpose of Sections 3 and 4 has been to provide the reasons for the
amendments to existing and new categorical exclusions under EPA’s
final NEPA implementing regulations.  Section 3 provides the general
reasons, and Section 4 provides specific reasons for each of the 15
categories of action eligible for categorical exclusion.  EPA believes
it has documented that these actions routinely do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment by
providing references to EPA projects documented with EAs/FONSIs; through
reference to other federal agencies with similar provisions for CEs; and
through statement of EPA’s opinion.  The CEs are subject to the
categorical exclusion requirements in the final rule, including the
extraordinary circumstances requirements.  The 15 CEs include five CEs
that are more likely to involve extraordinary circumstances and require
the EPA Responsible Official to document a determination that a
categorical exclusion applies, and 10 CEs that relate to the
administrative functions of the Agency that EPA believes generally do
not involve extraordinary circumstances and do not require the EPA
Responsible Official to document a determination that a categorical
exclusion applies.  In any case, even for these categorical exclusions,
the Responsible Official would be required to ensure that none of the
extraordinary circumstances applies to the action.  Table 1 is a summary
cross-walk between the CEs in EPA’s current Part 6 rule and the
proposed rule.

Table 1. Summary Cross-walk Between Categorical Exclusions in EPA’s
Current and Final Part 6 Rules

CEs in Current Rule	Nature of CE		     CEs in EPA’s Final Rule

Subpart A - General

6.107(d)(1)	Minor rehabilitation	     6.204(a)(1)(i) for EPA facilities

        (ii) for grant applicant projects

Subpart E - WWTCGP

6.505(b)(1)	Minor rehabilitation	     6.204(a)(1)(ii) for grant
applicant projects

(2)	Sewers - minor upgrade		        (ii) rehab existing infrastructure
systems

(3)	Sewers to unsewered area		         (iii) sewers to unsewered areas

Subpart G - ORD

6.704(b)(1)	Library/literature searches	     6.204(a)(2)(iii) includes
library/literature searches

(2)	Computer studies/activities	         (iii) includes computer
studies/activities

(3)	Monitoring/sample collection	         (iii) includes
monitoring/sample collection

(4)	Projects in contained facility	         (iv) projects in contained
facility

Subpart F - NPDES, Subpart H - SWDemo and Subpart I - Facilities: no
action-specific CEs



5.	Extraordinary Circumstances – Current and New  TC "5.	Extraordinary
Circumstances – Current and New" \f C \l "1"  

	5(a)	Current Extraordinary Circumstances  TC "5(a)	Current
Extraordinary Circumstances" \f C \l "2"  .  EPA’s current NEPA
implementing regulations include a general provision for extraordinary
circumstances in Subpart A – General, at Section 6.107(e).  Section
6.107(e)(1)(i) through (iii), including § 6.107(e)(ii)(A) through (C),
list five extraordinary circumstances.  Section 6.107(e)(1)(ii)(D)
provides for identification of other resource areas that would be
identified in supplemental guidance, and § 6.107(e)(1)(iv) provides for
program-specific criteria for not granting a categorical exclusion in
other subparts of the current regulations.  These are listed in Appendix
2-1.

	Subparts E through I of EPA’s current NEPA implementing regulations
establish criteria for conducting environmental reviews for particular
types of actions.  Subpart E includes three extraordinary circumstances
that are applicable to wastewater treatment construction grants program
projects, as listed in Appendix 2-2.  As indicated in Appendices 2-3
through 2-6, none of the other program-specific subparts establish
extraordinary circumstances beyond those in Subpart A that are
applicable to the actions specific to these subparts.

	In summary, EPA’s current NEPA implementing regulations include five
general and three specific extraordinary circumstances for wastewater
treatment construction grants program projects.

	5(b)	New Extraordinary Circumstances  TC "5(b)	New Extraordinary
Circumstances" \f C \l "2"  .  The final regulations consolidate and
standardize the environmental review process applicable to all EPA
actions subject to NEPA, including the extraordinary circumstances.  The
amended and new extraordinary circumstances have been consolidated into
a single listing applicable to all EPA actions subject to NEPA. 
Consistent with EPA’s current rule, the final rule provides that an
action considered for categorical exclusion must be subject to
sufficient environmental review to determine whether any extraordinary
circumstances are involved.  EPA’s final rule identifies 10
extraordinary circumstances.  These 10 extraordinary circumstances are
listed in Appendix 5 and in the final rule at § 6.204(b).

	5(c)	Reasons for Amended and New Extraordinary Circumstances  TC "5(c)
Reasons for Amended and New Extraordinary Circumstances" \f C \l "2"  . 
Five of the extraordinary circumstances in EPA’s final rule are
substantially the same as the eight in EPA’s current Part 6 rule that
are applicable generally or to specific types of actions in EPA’s
current NEPA implementing regulations.  EPA is using this final rule to
update and amend the current extraordinary circumstances to clarify the
conditions for their applicability, and to consolidate the extraordinary
circumstances into a single listing that is applicable to all EPA
actions subject to NEPA.  This final rule also adds five new
extraordinary circumstances based, in part, on consideration of the
criteria for actions that generally require an EIS.

	Appendix 5 lists EPA’s extraordinary circumstances and includes
notation regarding each extraordinary circumstance’s relationship to
extraordinary circumstances in the current Part 6 rule.  Appendix 5 also
notes the nature of the amendment to the extraordinary circumstance
(e.g., assure applicability to all actions subject to NEPA; clarify the
conditions of applicability) or states that it is a new extraordinary
circumstance.

	5(c)(1)	Amended and New Extraordinary Circumstances  TC "5(c)(1)
Amended and New Extraordinary Circumstances" \f C \l "3"  .  EPA
believes there is a relationship between the extraordinary circumstances
and the criteria for actions that generally require EISs.  Most of the
new extraordinary circumstances include language and concepts currently
in criteria for actions that generally require an EIS.  The intent is to
standardize the essential concepts and combine the criteria into a
consolidated set of extraordinary circumstances applicable to all EPA
actions subject to NEPA.  The extraordinary circumstances are not
intended to be a listing of requirements for preparing EISs.  Rather,
they are to be used to determine whether a categorical exclusion applies
to the action.  If not, the EPA Responsible Official must prepare an EA
to determine whether a FONSI, or an EIS, is the appropriate NEPA
document for the project, or the Responsible Official may proceed
directly with preparing an EIS.  For each of the 10 proposed
extraordinary circumstances, the relationship of each to the criteria
for actions that generally require an EIS in the current Part 6 rule is
listed, where applicable, along with any additional reasons for the
amended and new extraordinary circumstances.  It is important to note,
however, that extraordinary circumstances are used to help the
Responsible Official determine whether, or not, a categorical exclusion
applies to the proposed action, and that the criteria for actions that
generally require an EIS are criteria that generally, but not always,
require an EIS.  The extraordinary circumstances are listed below (see
final rule, § 6.204(b)).  For the extraordinary circumstances that are
substantially the same as those in the current Part 6 rule, notable
amending language is underlined.

	§6.204(b)(1): The proposed action is known or expected to have
potentially significant environmental impacts on the quality of the
human environment either individually or cumulatively over time (see 40
CFR 1508.25(a)).

	Substantially the same as current Part 6, §6.107(e)(1)(i), and similar
to criteria for actions that generally require an EIS currently in Part
6 at §§ 6.509(b), 6.605(a)(1), and 6.706(a)(4), with clarifications
regarding conditions of applicability; consolidated to clarify
applicability to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.  EPA believes this
extraordinary circumstance is broadened and strengthened by adding
“potentially” and that “environmental impacts” substituted for
“effect” clarify the conditions of applicability.  EPA also believes
this extraordinary circumstance incorporates the concepts currently in
Part 6 at §§ 6.509(b), 6.605(a)(1), and 6.706(a)(4) in that the
proposed action may be connected to other proposed actions with
potentially significant impacts, or to other proposed actions with
cumulatively significant impacts (see 40 CFR 1508.25(a)).

	§6.204(b)(2): The proposed action is known or expected to have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any community, including minority communities, low-income
communities, or federally-recognized Indian tribal communities.

	New extraordinary circumstance; consistent with Executive Order 12898,
Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations
and Low-Income Populations.

	§6.204(b)(3): The proposed action may significantly affect federally
listed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat.

	Substantially same as current Part 6, § 6.107(e)(1)(ii)(B), and
similar to criteria for actions that generally require an EIS currently
in Part 6 at §§ 6.108(d) and 6.605(b)(3), with clarifications
regarding conditions of applicability; consolidated to clarify
applicability to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.

	§6.204(b)(4): The proposed action may significantly affect national
natural landmarks or any property with nationally significant historic,
architectural, prehistoric, archeological, or cultural value, including
but not limited to, property listed on or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places.

	Substantially same as current Part 6, § 6.107(e)(1)(ii)(A), and
similar to criteria for actions that generally require an EIS currently
in Part 6 at §§ 6.108(f) and 6.605(b)(4) and (5), with clarifications
regarding conditions of applicability; consolidated to clarify
applicability to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.  It is EPA’s view
that amending the language of the current Part 6 § 6.107(e)(1)(ii)(A),
as proposed, incorporates the concepts of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Historic Sites Act, the Archeological and Historic
Preservation Act and applicable Executive Orders, as well as the
concepts in the criteria for actions that generally require an EIS in
the current Part 6 rule.

	§6.204(b)(5): The proposed action may significantly affect
environmentally important natural resource areas such as wetlands,
floodplains, significant agricultural lands, aquifer recharge zones,
coastal zones, barrier islands, wild and scenic rivers, and significant
fish or wildlife habitat.

	Substantially same as current Part 6, §6.107(e)(1)(ii)(C), and similar
to criteria for actions that generally require an EIS currently in Part
6 at §§ 6.108(c), (e)(3) and (4), (f) and (g) and 6.605(b)(2) and (5),
with clarifications regarding conditions of applicability; consolidated
to clarify applicability to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.  It is
EPA’s view that the proposed language is more broadly stated and
inclusive of concepts in the criteria for actions that generally require
an EIS found in EPA’s current Part 6 rule.  Use of “such as”
indicates the listed items indicate the types of natural resource areas
to be considered but the list is not necessarily inclusive.  EPA
believes “significant agricultural lands” encompasses and is a more
descriptive term for EPA’s NEPA practitioners than the term
“important farmlands” used currently in the Part 6 rule.

	§6.204(b)(6): The proposed action has the potential to cause
significant adverse air quality effects.

	New extraordinary circumstance based on current Part 6, § 6.303, and
similar to criteria for actions that generally require an EIS currently
in Part 6 at §§ 6.108(g) and 6.605(b)(2), with clarification regarding
conditions of applicability; consolidated to clarify applicability to
all EPA actions subject to NEPA.

	§6.204(b)(7): The proposed action will likely have a significant
effect on the pattern and type of land use (industrial, commercial,
agricultural, recreational, residential) or growth and distribution of
population including altering the character of existing residential
areas, or may not be consistent with state or local government, or
federally-recognized Indian tribe approved land use plans or federal
land management plans.

	New extraordinary circumstance that is similar to criteria for actions
that generally require an EIS currently in Part 6 at §§ 6.108(a),
(e)(1) and (2), and 6.605(b)(1), with clarifications regarding
conditions of applicability; consolidated to clarify applicability to
all EPA actions subject to NEPA.  “Displace populations” used in
current Part 6, § 6.108(e)(1), is not included because EPA believes
that “altering the character of existing residential areas”
addresses this concept.  It is EPA’s view that EPA needs to consider
the potential for impact of EPA’s proposed action on other
governmental entities’ land use or land management plans when
determining the appropriate NEPA documentation for an action.

	§6.204(b)(8): The proposed action is expected to cause significant
public controversy about a potential environmental impact of the
proposed action.

	Substantially same as current Part 6, § 6.107(e)(1)(iii), and similar
to criteria for actions that generally require an EIS currently in Part
6 at §§ 6.509(b) and 6.706(a)(3), with clarification that the
conditions of applicability are related to a potential for environmental
effect of the proposed action; consolidated to clarify applicability to
all EPA actions subject to NEPA.  EPA removed “[t]he action is known
or expected not to be cost-effective.”  It is EPA’s view that
cost-effectiveness is not an environmental impact criterion and should
not be a basis for determining whether, or not, an action fits the
criteria for categorical exclusion.

	§6.204(b)(9): The proposed action may be associated with providing
financial assistance  to a federal agency through an interagency
agreement for a project that is known or expected to have potentially
significant environmental impacts.

	New extraordinary circumstance.  It is EPA’s view that an interagency
agreement for an action subject to NEPA should not be categorically
excluded if it has the potential for adverse environmental impacts.

	§6.204(b)(10): The proposed action may conflict with federal, state or
local government, or federally-recognized Indian tribe environmental,
resource-protection, or land-use laws or regulations.

	New extraordinary circumstance that is similar to criteria for actions
that generally require an EIS currently in Part 6 at §§ 6.108(b) and
6.509(b); clarify applicability to all EPA actions subject to NEPA. 
EPA’s current Part 6 rule, §§ 6.108(b) and 6.509(b), includes
criteria for preparing EISs that are similar in concept to this proposed
extraordinary circumstance.  EPA believes this factor needs to be
considered when evaluating actions that may otherwise be eligible for
categorical exclusion.

		5(c)(2)	Summary of Amended and New Extraordinary Circumstances  TC
"5(c)(2)	Summary of Amended and New Extraordinary Circumstances" \f C \l
"3"  .  The purpose of Sections 3 and 5 has been to provide the reasons
for the amended and new extraordinary circumstances under EPA’s NEPA
implementing regulations at Part 6.  Section 3 provides the general
reasons for the amended and new extraordinary circumstances, and Section
5 provides specific reasons for each of the 10 extraordinary
circumstances.  EPA’s final rule states that an action that is
categorically excluded must be subject to sufficient environmental
review to determine whether any extraordinary circumstances are
involved.  Five of the extraordinary circumstances are substantially the
same as the eight in EPA’s current Part 6 rule that are applicable
generally or on a program-specific basis with one of these extraordinary
circumstances combining the elements of two in the current Part 6 rule. 
EPA is using this rule to update and amend the current extraordinary
circumstances to clarify the conditions for their applicability, and to
consolidate the extraordinary circumstances into a single listing that
would be applicable to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.  This final rule
also proposes five new extraordinary circumstances based, in part, on
consideration of the criteria for actions that generally require an EIS.

	EPA believes there is a relationship between the extraordinary
circumstances and the criteria for actions that generally require EISs. 
Most of the new extraordinary circumstances include language and
concepts currently in criteria for actions that generally require EISs. 
The intent is to standardize the essential concepts and combine the
criteria into a consolidated set of extraordinary circumstances
applicable to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.  The extraordinary
circumstances are not intended to be a listing of requirements for
preparing EISs.  Rather, they are to be used to determine whether a
categorical exclusion applies to the action.  If not, the Responsible
Official may prepare an EA to determine whether a FONSI or an EIS is the
appropriate NEPA document for the project, or the Responsible Official
may proceed directly with preparing an EIS.  Table 2 provides a summary
cross-walk between the extraordinary circumstances and certain criteria
for actions that generally require an EIS in EPA’s current rule and
the extraordinary circumstances in EPA’s final rule.



Table 2. Summary Cross-walk Between Extraordinary Circumstances and
Certain EIS Criteria in EPA’s Current Rule and Extraordinary
Circumstances in EPA’s Final Rule

ECs in Current Rule	Related EIS Criteria in Current Rule	Nature of EC
ECs in EPA’s Final Rule

Subpart A – General

             6.107(e)(1)(i)

                                      

                               (ii)(A)

                               (ii)(B)

                               (ii)(C)

                               (iii)	

6.509(b)

6.605(a)(1)

6.706(a)(4)

6.108(f)

6.605(b)(4) and (5)

6.108(d)

6.605(b)(3)

6.108(c)

6.108(e)(3) and (4)

6.108(f)

6.108(g)

6.605(b)(2) and (5)

6.509(b)

6.706(a)(3)	

Cumulative impacts

Historic preservation

(Parklands)

T & E species/habitats

Floodplains/wetlands

(Other public lands/recreation)

Not cost effective or controversial projects	

6.204(b)(1)  cumulative impacts

6.204(b)(4)  historic preservation

6.204(b)(3)  T & E species/habitats

6.204(b)(5)  environmentally important natural resource areas such as
floodplains, wetlands (and other public lands and recreation areas)

6.204(b)(8)  controversial projects

Subpart E – WWTCGP

             6.505(c)(i)(A-B)

                          (ii)

                          (iii)	

6.509(a)(2)

6.509(a)(2)	

Surface/ground water dischg

Volume loading re water dischg

Serve 30% more population	

Not found in proposed rule as extraordinary circumstances; rather, they
have been incorporated into the appropriate CE (6.204(a)(ii))

Subpart F – NPDES

Subpart H – SWDemo

Subpart I – Facilities	

No program-specific extraordinary

circumstances



Proposed New Extraordinary Circumstances

                                Related EIS Criteria in Current Rule	

Nature of EC	

ECs in EPA’s Final Rule

                                (None)

                               

                                6.303

                                6.108(g)

                                6.605(b)(2)

                                6.108(a)

                                6.605(b)(1)

                                (None)

                                

                                (None)

                               6.108(b)	Environmental justice

Air quality/noise impacts

Land use patterns

Land transfer/site remediation

Interagency agreement projects

Conflict with federal, state, local, tribal laws/regs	6.204(b)(2) EJ
Executive Order

6.204(b)(6) air quality/noise impacts

6.204(b)(7) land use patterns

6.204(b)(8) land transfer/site remediation

6.204(b)(9) IAG projects

6.204(b)(10) conflict with F/S/L/T laws/regulations



6.	Criteria for Actions that Generally Require EISs  – Current and New
 TC "6.	Criteria for Actions that Generally Require EISs  – Current
and New" \f C \l "1"  

	6(a)	Current Criteria for Actions that Generally Require EISs  TC "6(a)
Current Criteria for Actions that Generally Require EISs" \f C \l "2"  .
 EPA’s current NEPA implementing regulations include a general
provision for criteria for initiating an EIS in Subpart A – General. 
Section 6.108 lists seven criteria, one of which includes four elements,
totaling 10 criteria.  These are listed in Appendix 2-1.

	Subparts E through I of EPA’s current NEPA implementing regulations
establish specific criteria for conducting environmental reviews for
particular types of program-specific actions.  In addition to a
reference to the general criteria in §6.108, Subpart E – WWTCG
includes conditions requiring EISs at § 6.509(a)(2), and three other
conditions are listed in § 6.509(b) that are applicable to wastewater
treatment construction grants program projects; see Appendix 2-2. 
Subpart F – NPDES includes general guideline criteria for preparing an
EIS at § 6.605(a)(1), and five specific criteria for preparing an EIS
at § 6.605(b)(1) through (5); see Appendix 2-3.  In addition to a
reference to the general criteria in § 6.108, Subpart G – ORD
includes five specific criteria for preparing an EIS at § 6.706(a)(1)
through (5); see Appendix 2-4.  Subpart H – SWDemo and Subpart I –
Facilities both reference only the general criteria in § 6.108; see
Appendices 2-5 and 2-6, respectively.  Review of these criteria shows
that one of the program-specific criteria in § 6.509(b), the
program-specific criteria in § 6.605(a)(1) and the criteria in §
6.706(a)(4) are all similar in that they address the concept of
cumulative impacts.  Further, one of the program-specific criteria in §
6.509(b) and the criterion in § 6.706(a)(3) are similar in that they
address the concept of highly controversial projects; one of the
program-specific criteria in § 6.509(b) is also similar to the general
criterion at § 6.108(b) in that they address the concept of violation
of federal, state, local or tribal laws and regulations.

	In summary, EPA’s current NEPA implementing regulations include 10
general criteria for initiating an EIS.  All except Subpart F – NPDES
reference these general criteria; Subpart F – NPDES lists five
program-specific criteria that are substantially the same as five of the
10 general criteria.  In addition, the program-specific subparts
identify seven other criteria for preparing an EIS that are not
otherwise substantially the same as the 10 general criteria, or
repetitive of each other.  In all, there are 17 generally distinct
criteria for actions that generally require an EIS in EPA’s current
NEPA implementing regulations.

	6(b)	New Criteria for Actions that Generally Require EISs  TC "6(b)	New
Criteria for Actions that Generally Require EISs" \f C \l "2"  .  The
regulations consolidate and standardize the environmental review process
applicable to all EPA actions subject to NEPA, including the listing of
criteria for actions that generally require an EIS with this listing
applicable to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.  EPA’s final rule
identifies 11 criteria for actions that generally require EISs.  These
11 are listed in Appendix 6 and in the final rule at § 6.207(a)(2).

	6(c)	Reasons for Amendments to the Criteria for Actions that Generally
Require EISs  TC "6(c)	Reasons for Amendments to the Criteria for
Actions that Generally Require EISs" \f C \l "2"   .  The 11 criteria
for actions that generally require EISs in EPA’s proposed rule are
substantially the same as, or similar to, the criteria in 16 of the 17
general and program-specific criteria in EPA’s current Part 6 rule. 
The criterion in EPA’s current rule at § 6.509(b), “the project is
highly controversial,” is not included in the criteria for actions
that generally require an EIS because EPA believes that the potential
environmental impacts of such a project may not necessarily rise to the
level of significance such that an EIS is generally required; e.g., an
EA, with provisions for mitigation, could be the appropriate level of
environmental review for the action.  Further, as stated in the current
rule, there is no direct tie to environmental impacts.  Rather, EPA’s
final rule includes an extraordinary circumstance at § 6.204(b)(11)
that addresses this concept, including the potential for environmental
impact.

	EPA is updating and amending the criteria for actions that generally
require an EIS to clarify the conditions of applicability, and to
consolidate these criteria into a single listing to assure they are
applicable to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.  Appendix 6 lists EPA’s
criteria for actions that generally require an EIS and includes notation
regarding each criteria’s relationship to criteria in the current Part
6 rule.  Appendix 6 also notes the nature of the amendment to the
criteria (e.g., assure applicability to all actions subject to NEPA;
clarify the conditions of applicability).

	6(c)(1)	Amendments to the Criteria for Actions that Generally Require
EISs  TC "6(c)(1)	Proposed to the Criteria for Actions that Generally
Require EISs" \f C \l "3"    The criteria for actions that generally
require EISs combine language and concepts of criteria currently in
EPA’s Part 6 rule.  The intent is to standardize the essential
concepts and combine the variously stated criteria into a consolidated
set of criteria for actions that generally require an EIS that would be
applicable to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.  The criteria are not
intended to be a listing of requirements for preparing EISs in all
cases.  This is because not all actions examined under the criteria rise
to the level of significance such that an EIS is required (e.g., an EA
with provisions for mitigation could be the appropriate level of
environmental review for an action).  The criteria for actions that
generally require an EIS are listed below.  For each criterion that is
substantially the same as criteria in the current Part 6 rule, notable
amending language is underlined.  Any additional reasons for the
amending language are also presented.

	§6.207(a)(2)(i): The proposed action would result in a discharge of
treated effluent from a new or modified existing facility into a body of
water and the discharge is likely to have a significant effect on the
quality of the receiving waters.

	Substantially same as current Part 6, § 6.509(a)(2), and similar to
criteria for actions that generally require an EIS currently in Part 6
at § 6.605(b)(2), with clarifications regarding conditions of
applicability; consolidated to clarify applicability to all EPA actions
subject to NEPA.  EPA believes the underlined language clarifies the
conditions of applicability as does removing the terms “too lenient”
and “recent uses” used in the criterion currently in Part 6 at
§6.509(a)(2).

	§6.207(a)(2)(ii): The proposed action is likely to directly, or
through induced development, have significant adverse effect upon local
ambient air quality or local ambient noise levels.

	Substantially same as current Part 6, §§ 6.108(g) and 6.605(b)(2)
with clarifications regarding conditions of applicability; consolidated
to clarify applicability to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.  EPA has
focused the concepts included in this criterion to those of ambient air
quality and ambient noise levels.

	§6.207(a)(2)(iii): The proposed action is likely to have significant
adverse effects on surface water reservoirs or navigation projects.

	Substantially same as current Part 6, § 6.605(b)(5), with
clarifications regarding conditions of applicability; consolidated to
clarify applicability to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.  EPA has
focused the concepts included in this criterion to those associated with
reservoirs or navigation projects.

	§6.207(a)(2)(iv): The proposed action would be inconsistent with state
or local government, or federally-recognized Indian tribe approved land
use plans or regulations, or federal land management plans.

	Substantially same as current Part 6, § 6.108(b), and similar to
criteria for actions that generally require an EIS currently in Part 6
at §§ 6.108(e) and 6.605(b)(3), with clarifications regarding
conditions of applicability; consolidated to clarify applicability to
all EPA actions subject to NEPA.  EPA is updating this criterion by
adding “federally-recognized Indian tribes,” and clarifying that
this criterion includes federal land management plans.  EPA removed
“from any structure or facility constructed or operated under the
proposed action” (language currently in Part 6 at § 6.108(b)) because
EPA believes the criterion is broadly based to address all EPA actions
subject to NEPA, including these specific types of actions.

	§6.207(a)(2)(v): The proposed action would be inconsistent with state
or local government, or federally-recognized Indian tribe environmental,
resource-protection, or land-use laws and regulations for protection of
the environment.

	Substantially same as current Part 6, § 6.509(b), and similar to
criteria for actions that generally require an EIS in § 6.108(d), with
clarifications regarding conditions of applicability; consolidated to
clarify applicability to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.  EPA is
updating this criterion by adding ‘federally-recognized Indian
tribes,” and clarifying that this criterion includes environmental,
resource-protection, or land-use laws and regulations for protection of
the environment.

	§6.207(a)(2)(vi): The proposed action is likely to significantly
affect the environment through the release of radioactive, hazardous or
toxic substances, or biota.

	Substantially same as current Part 6, § 6.706(a)(1) and (2);
consolidated to clarify applicability to all EPA actions subject to
NEPA.  The general term “biota” replaces “organism or
organisms.”

	§6.207(a)(2)(vii): The proposed action involves uncertain
environmental effects or highly unique environmental risks that are
likely to be significant.

	Substantially same as current Part 6, § 6.706(a)(5); consolidated to
clarify applicability to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.

	§6.207(a)(2)(viii): The proposed action is likely to significantly
affect national natural landmarks or any property on or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places.

	Substantially same as current Part 6, §§ 6.108(f) and 6.605(b)(4),
with clarifications regarding conditions of applicability; consolidated
to clarify applicability to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.  It is
EPA’s view that amending the language  incorporates the concepts of
the National Historic Preservation Act, the Historic Sites Act, the
Archeological and Historic Preservation Act and applicable Executive
Orders, as well as the concepts in the criteria for actions that
generally require an EIS in the current Part 6 rule.

	§6.207(a)(2)(ix): The proposed action is likely to significantly
affect environmentally important natural resources such as wetlands,
significant agricultural lands, aquifer recharge zones, coastal zones,
barrier islands, wild and scenic rivers, and significant fish or
wildlife habitat.

	Substantially same as current Part 6, § 6.108(c), (e)(3) and (4), and
(g), and § 6.605(b)(2) and (5), with clarifications regarding
conditions of applicability; consolidated to clarify applicability to
all EPA actions subject to NEPA.  It is EPA’s view that amending the
language  is more broadly stated and inclusive of concepts in the
criteria for actions that generally require an EIS found in EPA’s
current Part 6 rule.  Use of “such as” indicates the listed items
serve as indications of the types of natural resource areas to be
considered and that the listing is not necessarily inclusive.  EPA
believes “significant agricultural lands” encompasses and is a more
descriptive term for EPA’s NEPA practitioners than the term
“important farmlands” used currently in the Part 6 rule.

	§6.207(a)(2)(x): The proposed action in conjunction with related
federal, state or local government, or federally-recognized Indian tribe
projects is likely to produce significant cumulative impacts.

	Substantially the same as current Part 6, § 6.509(b); consolidated to
clarify applicability to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.  EPA is 
updating this criterion by adding “federally-recognized Indian
tribe.”

	§6.207(a)(2)(xi): The proposed action is likely to significantly
affect the pattern and type of land use (industrial, commercial,
recreational, residential) or growth and distribution of population
including altering the character of existing residential areas.

	Substantially the same as current Part 6, §§ 6.108(a) and 6.605(b);
consolidated to clarify applicability to all actions subject to NEPA.

		6(c)(2)	Summary of Amendments to the Criteria for Actions that
Generally Require EISs  TC "6(c)(2)	Summary of Amendments to the
Criteria for Actions that Generally Require EISs" \f C \l "3"  .  The
CEQ Regulations require that federal agencies include “[s]pecific
criteria for and identification of those typical classes of action ...
[w]hich normally do require environmental impact statements.”  [40 CFR
1507.3(b)(2)(i)]  As part of this rule-making, EPA is consolidating and
amending its criteria for actions that generally require an EIS. 
Section 3 provides the general reasons for the amended criteria included
in the final rule, and Section 6 provides specific reasons for each of
the 11 criteria for actions that generally require an EIS.  EPA is using
this rule-making process to update and amend the current criteria to
clarify the conditions for their applicability, and to consolidate the
criteria into a single listing that would be applicable to all EPA
actions subject to NEPA.  The amendments are based on conceptual
restructuring and consolidation, NEPA’s policy direction to emphasize
real environmental issues and alternatives, and consideration of the
extraordinary circumstances.

	The criteria for actions that generally require an EIS combine language
and concepts of criteria currently in EPA’s Part 6 rule.  The intent
is to standardize the essential concepts and combine the variously
stated criteria into a consolidated set of criteria for actions that
generally require an EIS that are applicable to all EPA actions subject
to NEPA.  The criteria are not intended to be a listing of requirements
for preparing EISs in all cases.  This is because not all actions
examined under the criteria rise to the level of significance such that
an EIS is required (e.g., an EA with provisions for mitigation could be
the appropriate level of environmental review for an action).  The 11
criteria for actions that generally require an EIS in EPA’s final rule
are substantially the same as, or similar to, 16 of the 17 general and
program-specific criteria in EPA’s current Part 6 rule.  The criteria
in EPA’s current rule at § 6.509(b), “the project is highly
controversial,” is not included in the criteria for actions that
generally require EISs because EPA believes that the potential
environmental impacts of such a project may not necessarily rise to the
level of significance such that an EIS is generally required; e.g., an
EA, with provisions for mitigation, could be the appropriate level of
environmental review for the action.  Further, as stated in the current
rule, there is no direct tie to environmental impacts.  Rather, EPA’s
final rule includes an extraordinary circumstance at § 6.204(b)(11)
that addresses this concept, including the potential for environmental
impact.  Table 3 provides a summary cross-walk between the criteria for
actions that generally require an EIS in EPA’s current rule and the
criteria in EPA’s final rule along with related extraordinary
circumstances in EPA’s proposed rule.



Table 3. Summary Cross-walk of Criteria for Actions that Generally
Require EISs in EPA’s Current Rule and Criteria for Actions that
Generally Require EISs and Related Extraordinary Circumstances in
EPA’s Final Rule

EIS Criteria – Current	Nature of Criteria	EIS Criteria – Final Rule
Related ECs – Final Rule

Subpart A – General

              6.108(a)

              6.605(b)(1)

              

              6.108(b)

              6.509(b)

              [6.108(d) and (e)]

              6.605(b)(3)

              6.108(c)

              6.605(b)(5)

              6.108(d)

              6.605(b)(3)

              6.108(e)(1)

                            (2)

                            (3)

                            (4)

              6.605(b)(5)

              6.108(f)

              6.605(b)(4)

              6.108(g)

              6.605(b)(2)

              6.108(g)

              6.605(b)(2)

(Duplicate listings in Subpart E – WWTCGP, Subpart F – NPDES and
Subpart G – ORD)	

Land use patterns

Conflict with F/S/L/T laws/regs or land use/management plans

Wetlands

Threatened/endangered species/habitat

Displaced population

Alter residential character

Floodplains

Farmlands

Farmlands

Historic preservation

Air/noise; surface and ground water

Fish-wildlife/habitats	

6.207(a)(2)(xi)

6.207(a)(2)(v)

6.207(a)(2)(iv)

6.207(a)(2)(ix)

6.207(a)(2)(ix)

6.207(a)(2)(xi)

6.207(a)(2)(xi)

6.207(a)(2)(ix)

6.207(a)(2)(ix)

6.207(a)(2)(viii)

6.207(a)(2)(i) and (ii)

6.207(a)(2)(ix)	

EC-7

EC-15

EC-5

EC-3

EC-7

EC-7

EC-5

EC-5

EC-4

EC-5, 6 and 9

EC-5



Subpart E – WWTCGP

              6.509(a)(2)

              6.605(b)(2)

              6.509(b)

              6.706(a)(3)

              6.509(b)

              6.605(a)(1)

              6.706(a)(4)	

Effluent discharge to stream

Controversial project

Cumulative impacts	

6.207(a)(2)(i)

6.207(a)(2)(x)	

EC-9

EC-11

EC-1

Subpart F – NPDES

              6.605(b)(5)	

Reservoirs/navigation projects	

6.207(a)(2)(iii)

	Subpart G – ORD

              6.706(a)(1)

              6.706(a)(2)

              6.706(a)(5)	

Release of hazardous/radiological/toxics

Release of organisms

Uncertain environmental effects	

6.207(a)(2)(vi)

6.207(a)(2)(vi)

6.207(a)(2)(vii)	

EC-13

EC-13

Subpart H – SWDemo

Subpart I – Facilities 	No program-specific criteria for actions that
generally require an EIS







	Appendix 1.  Exemption from NEPA for Certain EPA Actions and

	EPA’s Voluntary NEPA Policy and Procedures

Exemptions from NEPA for Certain EPA Actions

	Certain EPA actions are exempt from the procedural requirements of
NEPA, including the CEQ Regulations.  Congress has provided specific
statutory exemptions for certain EPA actions taken under the Clean Water
Act (CWA) and all EPA actions taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 
Specifically, under CWA Section 511(c)(1), EPA is exempt from preparing
EISs for all actions taken under the CWA except for issuance of NPDES
permits under CWA Section 402 for  “new sources” as defined in
Section 306, and for Federal financial assistance provided for assisting
construction of publicly owned treatment works under CWA Section 201 (33
U.S.C. 1371(c)).  Under the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination
Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 793(c)(1)), all actions taken under the CAA are
deemed not to be major federal actions significantly affecting the
environment.

	Further, the courts have exempted certain EPA actions from the
procedural requirements of NEPA through the functional equivalence
doctrine.  Under the functional equivalence doctrine, courts have found
EPA to be exempt from the procedural requirements of NEPA for certain
actions under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA); the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and
the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA).  The
courts reasoned that EPA actions under these statutes are functionally
equivalent to the analysis required under NEPA because they are
undertaken with full consideration of environmental impacts and
opportunities for public involvement.  See, e.g., EDF v. EPA, 489 F.2d
1247 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (FIFRA); State of Alabama v. EPA, 911 F. 2d 499
(11th Cir. 1990) (RCRA); Warren County v. North Carolina, 528 F. Supp.
276 (E.D. N.C. 1981) (TSCA); Western Nebraska Resources Council v. US
EPA, 943 F.2d 867 (8th Cir. 1991) (SDWA); Maryland v. Train, 415 F.
Supp. 116 (D. Md. 1976) (MPRSA).

	Agency actions exempt from the requirements of NEPA remain exempt under
this final rule.  If a question arises regarding the applicability of
the NEPA requirements to certain actions, the Responsible Official
should consult with the NEPA Official and the Office of General Counsel.

EPA's Voluntary NEPA Policy and Procedures

	In 1974, EPA Administrator Russell Train determined that the Agency
could voluntarily prepare EISs for certain regulatory activities that
were exempt from NEPA.  In 1998, Administrator Carol Browner amended
this policy to permit the preparation of non-EIS NEPA documents for
certain EPA regulatory actions.  The Agency’s current "Notice of
Policy and Procedures for Voluntary Preparation of National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents" (see 63 FR 58045) sets out
the policy and procedures EPA uses when preparing environmental review
documents under the Voluntary NEPA Policy.  This final rule does not
make any changes to the voluntary NEPA policy and procedures.  However,
the final rule can serve as a framework for the preparation of voluntary
NEPA documents.

Appendix 2-1.  Categorical Exclusions, Extraordinary Circumstances, and
Criteria for Initiating an EIS in EPA’s Current NEPA Implementing
Regulations at Subpart A – General

Categorical Exclusion

6.107(d)(1): Actions which are solely directed toward minor
rehabilitation of existing facilities, functional replacement of
equipment, or towards the construction of new ancillary facilities
adjacent or appurtenant to existing facilities.

Extraordinary Circumstances

6.107(e)(1): ...an action ... may involve serious local or environmental
issues, or meets any of the criteria ... below:

(i): The action is known or expected to have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment, either individually, cumulatively over
time, or in conjunction with other Federal, State, local, tribal or
private actions;

(ii): The action is known or expected to directly or indirectly affect:
(A) Cultural resource areas such as archaeological and historic sites
..., (B) Endangered or threatened species and their critical habitats
..., (C) Environmentally important natural resource areas such as
floodplains, wetlands, important farmlands, aquifer recharge zones ...,
or (D) Other resource areas identified in supplemental guidance...;

(iii): The action is known or expected not to be cost-effective or to
cause significant public controversy; or

(iv): Appropriate specialized program specific criteria for not granting
an exclusion found in other subparts of this regulation are applicable
to the action.

Criteria for Initiating an EIS - applicable to subparts E, G, H and I

6.108(a): The Federal action may significantly affect the pattern and
type of land use (industrial, commercial, agricultural, recreational,
residential) or growth and distribution of population;

6.108(b): The effects resulting from any structure or facility
constructed or operated under the proposed action may conflict with
local, regional or State land use plans or policies;

6.108(c): The proposed action may have significant adverse effects on
wetlands, including indirect and cumulative effects, or any major part
of a structure or facility constructed or operated under the proposed
action may be located in wetlands;

6.108(d): The proposed action may significantly affect threatened and
endangered species or their habitats identified in the Department of
Interior’s list ... or a State’s list, or a structure or a facility
constructed or operated under the proposed action may be located in the
habitat;

6.108(e): Implementation of the proposed action or plan may directly
cause or induce changes that significantly: (1) Displace population; (2)
Alter the character of existing residential areas; (3) Adversely affect
a floodplain; or (4) Adversely affect significant amounts of important
farmlands ..., or agricultural operations on this land.

6.108(f): The proposed action may, directly, indirectly or cumulatively
have significant adverse effect on parklands, preserves, other public
lands or areas of recognized scenic, recreational, archaeological, or
historic value; or

6.108(g): The Federal action may directly or through induced development
have a significant adverse effect upon local ambient air quality, local
ambient noise levels, surface water or groundwater quality or quantity,
water supply, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and their natural habitats.





Appendix 2-2.  Categorical Exclusions, Extraordinary Circumstances, and
Criteria for Initiating an EIS in EPA’s Current NEPA Implementing
Regulations at Subpart E – Environmental Review Procedures for
Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Program

Categorical Exclusion

6.505(b): ... any of the categories in § 6.107(d), or:

(1) Actions for which the facilities planning is consistent with ... §
6.107(d)(1) which do not affect the degree of treatment or capacity of
the existing facility including, but not limited to, infiltration and
inflow corrections, grant-eligible replacement of existing mechanical
equipment or structures, and the construction of small structures on
existing sites;

(2) Actions in sewered communities of less than 10,000 persons which are
for minor upgrading and minor expansion of existing treatment works. 
This category does not include actions that directly or indirectly
involve the extension of new collection systems funded with Federal or
other sources of funds;

(3) Actions in unsewered communities of less than 10,000 persons where
on-site technologies are proposed ...

Extraordinary Circumstances

6.505(c): ... any of the criteria listed in § 6.107(e) or when:

(i) The facilities to be provided will (A) create a new, or (B) relocate
an existing, discharge to surface or ground waters;

(ii) The facilities will result in substantial increases in the volume
of discharge or the loading of pollutants from an existing source or
from new facilities to receiving waters; or

(iii) The facilities would provide capacity to serve a population 30%
greater than the existing population.

Criteria for Initiating an EIS

6.509(a): Conditions requiring EISs.

(1) ...the treatment works or collector system will cause any of the
conditions under § 6.108 to exist, or ...

(2) The treated effluent is being discharged into a body of water where
the present classification is too lenient or is being challenged as too
low to protect present or recent uses, and the effluent will not be of
sufficient quality or quantity to meet the requirements of these uses.

6.509(b): ... The project is highly controversial; the project in
conjunction with related Federal, State, local or tribal resource
projects produces significant cumulative impacts; or if it is determined
that the treatment works may violate Federal, State, local or tribal
laws or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.



Appendix 2-3.  Categorical Exclusions, Extraordinary Circumstances, and
Criteria for Initiating an EIS in EPA’s Current NEPA Implementing
Regulations at Subpart F – Environmental Review Procedures for the New
Source NPDES Program

Categorical Exclusion

6.602(a): The Applicability statement, “[t]he procedures set forth
under subparts A, B, C and D, and this subpart shall apply to the
issuance of new source NPDES permits.. [by EPA]” implies that §
6.107(d)(1) could be applied.  Subpart F does not list any specific
categorical exclusions.

Extraordinary Circumstances

6.602(a): The Applicability statement, “[t]he procedures set forth
under subparts A, B, C and D, and this subpart shall apply to the
issuance of new source NPDES permits ... [by EPA]” implies that §
6.107(e)(1)(i) through (iii) could be applied.

Criteria for Initiating an EIS

6.605(a)(1): When determining the significance of a proposed new
source’s impact, the responsible official shall consider both its
short term and long term effects as well as its direct and indirect
effects and beneficial and adverse environmental impacts as defined in
40 CFR 1508.8.

6.605(b): Specific criteria.  An EIS will be prepared when:

(1) The new source will induce or accelerate significant changes in
industrial, commercial, agricultural, or residential land use
concentrations or distributions which have the potential for significant
environmental effects.  Factors that should be considered in determining
if these changes are environmentally significant include but are not
limited to: The nature and extent of the vacant land subject to
increased development pressure as a result of the new source, the
increases in population or population density which may be induced and
the ramifications of such changes; the nature of land use regulations in
the affected area and their potential effects on development and the
environment; and the changes in the availability or demand for energy
and the resulting environmental consequences.

(2) The new source will directly, or through induced development, have
significant adverse effect upon local ambient air quality, local ambient
noise levels, floodplains, surface or groundwater quality or quantity,
fish, wildlife, and their natural habitats.

(3) Any major part of the new source will have significant adverse
effect on the habitat of threatened or endangered species on the
Department of the Interior’s or a State’s list of threatened and
endangered species.

(4) The environmental impact of the issuance of a new source NPDES
permit will have significant direct and adverse effect on a property
listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places.

(5) Any major part of the source will have significant adverse effects
on parklands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, reservoirs or other
important bodies of water, navigation projects, or agricultural lands.



Appendix 2-4.  Categorical Exclusions, Extraordinary Circumstances, and
Criteria for Initiating an EIS in EPA’s Current NEPA Implementing
Regulations at Subpart G – Environmental Review Procedures for Office
or Research and Development

Categorical Exclusion

6.704(a): “... based on general criteria in § 6.107(d) and
specialized categories of ORD ... in § 6.704(b).”

6.704(b): “... specialized categories of ORD actions eligible for
categorical exclusion...:”

(1) Library or literature searches and studies;

(2) Computer studies and activities;

(3) Monitoring and sample collection wherein no significant alteration
of existing ambient conditions occurs;

(4) Projects conducted completely within a contained facility, such as a
laboratory or other enclosed building, where methods are employed for
appropriate disposal of laboratory wastes and safeguards exist against
hazardous, toxic, and radioactive materials entering the environment. 
Laboratory directors or other appropriate officials must certify and
provide documentation that the laboratory follows good laboratory
practices and adheres to applicable Federal statutes, regulations and
guidelines.

Extraordinary Circumstances

6.704(a): States that “... the criteria in § 6.107(e) for not
granting a categorical exclusion ...” applies.

Criteria for Initiating an EIS

6.706(a): “[A]n EIS is prepared when any of the conditions under
§6.108 (a) through (g) exist or when:

(1) The proposed action may significantly affect the environment through
the release of radioactive, hazardous or toxic substances;

(2) The proposed action, through the release of an organism or
organisms, may involve environmental effects which are significant;

(3) The proposed action involves effects upon the environment which are
likely to be highly controversial;

(4) The proposed action involves environmental effects which may
accumulate over time or combine with effects of other actions to create
impacts which are significant;

(5) The proposed action involves uncertain environmental effects or
highly unique environmental risks which may be significant.





Appendix 2-5.  Categorical Exclusions, Extraordinary Circumstances, and
Criteria for Initiating an EIS in EPA’s Current NEPA Implementing
Regulations at Subpart H – Environmental Review Procedures for Solid
Waste Demonstration Projects

Categorical Exclusion

6.800: The Purpose statement, “[t]his subpart amplifies the procedures
described in subparts A through D ...” implies that § 6.107(d)(1)
could be applied.  Subpart H does not list any specific categorical
exclusions.

Extraordinary Circumstances

6.800: The Purpose statement, “[t]his subpart amplifies the procedures
described in subparts A through D ...” implies that § 6.107(e) could
be applied.  Subpart H does not list any specific extraordinary
circumstances.

Criteria for Initiating an EIS

6.802: “Criteria for preparing EISs. ... an EIS will be prepared when
it is determined that any of the conditions in § 6.108 exist.



Appendix 2-6.  Categorical Exclusions, Extraordinary Circumstances, and
Criteria for Initiating an EIS in EPA’s Current NEPA Implementing
Regulations at Subpart I – Environmental Review Procedures for EPA
Facility Support Activities

Categorical Exclusion

6.900: The Purpose statement, “[t]his subpart amplifies the general
requirements described in subparts A through D ...” implies that §
6.107(d)(1) could be applied.  Subpart I does not list any specific
categorical exclusions.

Extraordinary Circumstances

6.900: The Purpose statement, “[t]his subpart amplifies the general
requirements described in subparts A through D ...” implies that §
6.107(e) could be applied.  Subpart I does not list any specific
extraordinary circumstances.

Criteria for Initiating an EIS

6.903(b): “EIS preparation criteria.  ... an EIS will be prepared when
it is determined that any of the conditions in § 6.108 of this part
exist.



Appendix 3.  EPA’s Categories of Actions That Would Be Eligible for
Categorical Exclusion Under the Final Rule and Relationship to
Categorical Exclusions in EPA’s Current NEPA Implementing Regulations.

Final Rule at § 6.204(a)(1). Actions eligible for categorical exclusion
that could involve extraordinary circumstances and require the EPA
Responsible Official to document a determination that a categorical
exclusion applies:

(i) Actions at EPA owned or operated facilities involving routine
facility maintenance, repair, and grounds-keeping; minor rehabilitation,
restoration, renovation, or revitalization of existing facilities;
functional replacement of equipment, acquisition and installation of
equipment, or construction of new minor ancillary facilities adjacent to
or on the same property as existing facilities.

Substantially same as current Part 6, § 6.107(d)(1); clarify applicable
to actions conducted directly by EPA

(ii) Actions relating to existing infrastructure systems (such as sewer
systems; drinking water supply systems; and stormwater systems,
including combined sewer overflow systems) that involve minor upgrading,
or minor expansion of system capacity or rehabilitation (including
functional replacement) of the existing system and system components
(such as the sewer collection network and treatment system, the system
to collect, treat, store and distribute drinking water; and stormwater
systems, including combined sewer overflow systems) or construction of
new minor ancillary facilities adjacent to or on the same property as
existing facilities.  This category does not include actions that:
involve new or relocated discharges to surface or ground water; will
likely result in the substantial increase in the volume or the loading
of pollutant to the receiving water; will provide capacity to serve a
population 30% greater than the existing population or is not supported
by the state, or other regional growth plan or strategy; or directly or
indirectly involve or relate to upgrading or extending infrastructure
systems primarily for the purposes of future development.

Substantially same as current Part 6, § 6.505(b)(2) for wastewater
treatment systems; assure applicability to all EPA actions subject to
NEPA, including grant actions.

(iii) Actions in unsewered communities involving the replacement of
existing on site systems, providing the new on site systems do not
result in substantial increases in the volume of discharge or the
loadings of pollutants from existing sources, or relocate existing
discharge.

Substantially same as current Part 6, § 6.505(b)(3) for wastewater
treatment systems; assure applicability to all EPA actions subject to
NEPA, including grant actions

(iv) Actions involving re-issuance of an NPDES permit for a new source
providing the conclusions of the original NEPA document are still valid
(including the appropriate mitigation), there will be no degradation of
the receiving waters, and the permit conditions do not change or are
more environmentally protective.

New CE.

(v) Actions for award of grants authorized by Congress under EPA’s
annual Appropriations Act that are solely for reimbursement of the costs
of a project that was completed prior to the date the appropriation was
enacted.

New CE.

Final Rule at § 6.204(a)(2).  Actions eligible for categorical
exclusion that generally do not involve extraordinary circumstances and
do not require the EPA Responsible Official to document a determination
that a categorical exclusion applies.

                  (i) Procedural, ministerial, administrative,
financial, personnel, and management actions necessary to 

                  support the normal conduct of EPA business.

New CE.

                 (ii) Acquisition actions (compliant with applicable
procedures for sustainable or “green” procurement)  

                 and contracting actions necessary to support the normal
conduct of EPA business.

New CE.

                 (iii) Actions involving information collection,
dissemination, or exchange; planning; monitoring and 

                 sample collection wherein no significant alteration of
existing ambient conditions occurs; educational and  

                 training programs; literature searches and studies;
computer studies and activities; research and analytical 

                 activities; development of compliance assistance tools;
and architectural and engineering studies.  These 

                 actions include those conducted directly by EPA and EPA
actions relating to contracts or assistance 

                 agreements involving such actions.

New CE that also substantially incorporates CEs in current Part 6 rule,
§ 6.704(b)(1) through (3).

                 (iv) Actions relating to or conducted completely within
a permanent, existing contained facility, such as a 

                 laboratory or other enclosed building, provided that
reliable and scientifically-sound methods are used to 

                 appropriately dispose of wastes and safeguards exist to
prevent hazardous, toxic and radioactive materials 

                 in excess of allowable limits from entering the
environment.  Where such activities are conducted at 

                 laboratories, the Lab Director or other appropriate
official must certify in writing that the laboratory 

                 follows good laboratory practices and adheres to all
applicable federal, state, local and federally-

                 recognized Indian tribal laws and regulations.  This
category does not include activities related to 

                 construction and/or demolition within the facility (see
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section).

Substantially the same as current Part 6, § 6.704(b)(4) with
clarifications regarding conditions of applicability.

                 (v) Actions involving emergency preparedness planning
and training activities.

New CE.

                 (vi) Actions involving the acquisition, transfer,
lease, disposition, or closure of existing permanent 

                 structures, land, equipment, materials or personal
property provided that the property:  has been used 

                 solely for office functions; has never been used for
laboratory purposes by any party; does not require site 

                 remediation; and will be used in essentially the same
manner such that the type and magnitude of the 

                 impacts will not change substantially.  This category
does not include activities related to construction 

                 and/or demolition of structures on the property (see
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section).

New CE.

 







                  (vii) Actions involving providing technical advice to
federal agencies, state or local governments, 

                  federally-recognized Indian tribes, foreign
governments, or public or private entities.

New CE.                 

                  (viii) Actions involving approval of EPA participation
in international “umbrella” agreements for 

                  cooperation in environmental-related activities that
would not commit the United States to any specific 

                  projects or actions.

New CE.

                 

                 (ix) Actions involving containment or removal and
disposal of asbestos-containing material or lead-based 

                 paint from EPA owned or operated facilities when
undertaken in accordance with applicable regulations.

New CE.

                (x) Actions involving new source NPDES permit
modifications that make only technical corrections to 

                the NPDES permit (such as correcting typographical
errors) that do not result in a change in 

                environmental impacts or conditions.

New CE.



Appendix 4.  Listing of EPA Environmental Assessments and Findings of
No Significant Impact Supporting EPA’s Proposals for Amended and New
Categorical Exclusions

CE	CE and List of Supporting EPA EAs/FONSIs 

6.204(a)(1)(ii)	Actions relating to existing infrastructure systems
(such as sewer systems; drinking water supply systems; and stormwater
systems, including combined sewer overflow systems) that involve minor
upgrading, or minor expansion of system capacity or rehabilitation
(including functional replacement) of the existing system and system
components (such as the sewer collection network and treatment system,
the system to collect, treat, store and distribute drinking water; and
stormwater systems, including combined sewer overflow systems) or
construction of new minor ancillary facilities adjacent to or on the
same property as existing facilities.  This category does not include
actions that: involve new or relocated discharges to surface or ground
water; will likely result in the substantial increase in the volume or
the loading of pollutant to the receiving water; will provide capacity
to serve a population 30% greater than the existing population or is not
supported by the state, or other regional growth plan or strategy; or 
directly or indirectly involve or relate to upgrading or extending
infrastructure systems primarily for the purposes of future development.

EPA EAs/FONSIs

- Wayne County, NY: Regional 500,000 gpd WWTP and Conveyance Facilities;
09/26/2002

- Onondaga County, Syracuse, NY: NH3 and P at Metro WWTP/CSO; 08/02/2001

- Solvay (Onondaga County), NY: Sewer Separation and Replacement;
08/20/1999

- City of Syracuse, NY: Midland Ave CSO Abatement Facility; 07/16/1999

- Solvay (Onondaga County), NY: Stormwater sewer extension; 11/02/1998

- New York City, NY: Flushing Bay CSO Abatement Project; 01/09/1997

- Mount Arlington, NJ: New Wastewater Collection and Conveyance
Facilities; 10/11/1995

- Clarence, NY: Clarence Hollow Area Sanitary Collector Sewer Project;
05/10/2004

- City of Williamsburg, KY: Construct New WWTP; 11/25/1998

- City of Vicco, KY: Construct new WW facility to replace 30-year old
facility; 08/27/1999

- City of Salyersville, KY: Construct WW treatment facility, renovate
collection systems; 02/09/2000

- Dodge City, AL: Construct new WWTP, percolation pond, collection
system and perform septic tank refits; 05/15/2001

- DeSoto Co. Regional Utility Authority, MS: Construct two WWTPs, eleven
WW pumping stations and pressure and gravity collection mains;
03/28/2002

- Dodge City, AL: Construct WWTP, collection system, refit septic tanks;
05/26/2000

- Somerset, KY: Construct new WWTP, extend collection system, replace
aging collection lines, and replace two outdated pumping stations;
05/01/2001

- Mountain Water District, Pike County, KY: Construct new WWTP,
collection system, and lift stations; 05/23/2000

- City of Jackson, MS: Modify and upgrade WWTP to meet NPDES permit
limits; 05/13/2001

- London Utilities Comm., Laurel Co., KY: Upgrade/replace WWTP
components; 05/22/2002

- City of Rainsville, AL: Expand and upgrade existing WWTP; 04/30/2003

- Cherokee Co., AL: Upgrade/expand existing WWTP; 06/10/2003

- City of Georgetown, KY: Expand WWTP, construct new effluent pump
station; 06/17/2003

- U. Savannah Council of Gov., McCormick Co. and Abbeville Co, SC:
Upgrade WWTP and remove excessive infiltration/inflow; 10/24/2000 and
12/28/2000

- Jefferson Co., MS: Rehabilitate/replace WWTP, distribution and
storage; 09/25/2002



6.204(a)(1)(ii) continued	- Huntsville, AL: Extend sewer collection
system and construct new pump station; 11/19/2002

- Lawrence Co., KY: Extend sewer collection system and construct two new
pump stations; 04/10/2003

- Christian Co. Fiscal Court, KY: Construct new WW collection system,
force main and pump station; 05/06/2003

- Town of Bethel, Pitt Co., NC: Replace sewer lines, construct force
main and regional pump station; 03/06/2000

-Metropolitan Sewer District of Buncombe Co., NC: Replace existing
1920/s era interceptor sewer; 08/02/2001

- Berkley Co. Water & Sanitation Auth, SC: Extend water distribution
mains to serve two communities; (undated)

- Jackson Co. Commission, AL: Extend water lines to unserved areas and
construct water tower; 12/13/2000

- Cleburne Co. Water Authority, AL: Extend water line to unserved areas;
10/22/2001

- Oak Ridge, TN: Extend water lines to area where groundwater
contaminated; 1/19/2002

- Stanly Co., NC: Extend water line to two schools; 02/11/2003

- Haywood Co., NC: Extend drinking water system to area with
contaminated groundwater; 05/23/2003

- Green River Valley Water District, KY: Extend water lines to areas not
serviced; 03/12/2002

- Henderson Co. Water District, KY: Extend water lines to areas not
serviced; 10/07/2002

- Greenville Co., SC: Extend water lines to areas with contaminated
groundwater; 02/25/2003

- East Casey Co., Water District, Liberty, KY: Extend water lines to
areas not serviced; 04/30/2003

- Morgan Co., TN: Extend water lines to areas not serviced; 06/09/2003



	

Appendix 5.  EPA’s Extraordinary Circumstances and Relationship to
Extraordinary Circumstances in EPA’s Current NEPA Implementing
Regulations

Final Rule at § 6.204(b).  The Responsible Official must review actions
eligible for categorical exclusion to determine whether any
extraordinary circumstances are involved.

(1) The proposed action is known or expected to have potentially
significant environmental impacts on the quality of the human
environment either individually or cumulatively over time (see 40 CFR
1508.25(a)).

Substantially same as current Part 6, § 6.107(e)(1)(i), and similar to
criteria for actions that generally require an EIS currently in Part 6
at §§ 6.509(b), 6.605(a)(1), and 6.706(a)(4), with clarifications
regarding conditions of applicability; consolidated to clarify
applicability to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.

(2) The proposed action is known or expected to have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any community,
including minority communities, low-income communities, or
federally-recognized Indian tribal communities.

New extraordinary circumstance; consistent with Executive Order 12898.

(3) The proposed action may significantly affect federally listed
threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat.

Substantially same as current Part 6, § 6.107(e)(1)(ii)(B), and similar
to criteria for actions that generally require an EIS currently in Part
6 at §§ 6.108(d) and 6.605(b)(3), with clarifications regarding
conditions of applicability; consolidated to clarify applicability to
all EPA actions subject to NEPA.

(4) The proposed action may significantly affect national natural
landmarks or any property with nationally significant historic,
architectural, prehistoric, archeological, or cultural value, including
but not limited to, property listed on or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places.

Substantially same as current Part 6, § 6.107(e)(1)(ii)(A), and similar
to criteria for actions that generally require an EIS currently in Part
6 at §§ 6.108(f) and 6.605(b)(4) and (5), with clarifications
regarding conditions of applicability; consolidated to clarify
applicability to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.

(5) The proposed action may significantly affect environmentally
important natural resource areas such as wetlands, floodplains,
significant agricultural lands, aquifer recharge zones, coastal zones,
barrier islands, wild and scenic rivers, and significant fish or
wildlife habitat.

Substantially same as current Part 6, § 6.107(e)(1)(ii)(C), and similar
to criteria for actions that generally require an EIS currently in Part
6 at §§ 6.108(c), (e)(3) and (4), (f) and (g) and 6.605(b)(2) and (5),
with clarifications regarding conditions of applicability; consolidated
to clarify applicability to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.

(6) The proposed action has the potential to cause significant adverse
air quality effects.

New extraordinary circumstance that is based on §6.303 in current Part
6, and similar to criteria for actions that generally require an EIS
currently in Part 6 at §§ 6.108(g) and 6.605(b)(2), with clarification
regarding conditions of applicability; consolidated to clarify
applicability to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.



(7) The proposed action will likely have a significant effect on the
pattern and type of land use (industrial, commercial, agricultural,
recreational, residential) or growth and distribution of population
including altering the character of existing residential areas, or may
not be consistent with state or local government, or
federally-recognized Indian tribe approved land use plans or federal
land management plans.

New extraordinary circumstance that is similar to criteria for actions
that generally require an EIS currently in Part 6 at §§ 6.108(a),
(e)(1) and (2), and 6.605(b)(1), with clarifications regarding
conditions of applicability; consolidated to clarify applicability to
all EPA actions subject to NEPA.

(8) The proposed action is expected to cause significant public
controversy about a potential environmental impact of the proposed
action.

Substantially same as current Part 6, § 6.107(e)(1)(iii), and similar
to criteria for actions that generally require an EIS currently in Part
6 at §§ 6.509(b) and 6.706(a)(3); consolidated to clarify
applicability to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.

(9) The proposed action may be associated with providing financial
assistance to a federal agency through an interagency agreement for a
project that is known or expected to have potentially significant
environmental impacts.

New extraordinary circumstance.

                (10) The proposed action may conflict with federal,
state or local government, or federally-recognized                     
Indian tribe environmental, resource-protection, or land-use laws or
regulations.

New extraordinary circumstance that is similar to criteria for actions
that generally require EISs currently in Part 6 at §§ 6.108(b) and
6.509(b); clarify applicability to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.





Appendix 6.  EPA’s Criteria for Actions that Generally Require EISs
and Relationship to Criteria for EISs in EPA’s Current NEPA
Implementing Regulations

Final Rule at § 6.207(a).  The Responsible Official will prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS) ... for major actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment, including actions for
which the EA analysis demonstrates that significant impacts will occur
that will not be reduced or eliminated by changes to or mitigation of
the proposed action.

Final Rule at § 6.207(a)(2).  A proposed action normally requires an
EIS if it meets any of the following criteria:

(i) The proposed action would result in a discharge of treated effluent
from a new or modified existing facility into a body of water and the
discharge is likely to have a significant effect on the quality of the
receiving waters.

Substantially same as current Part 6, § 6.509(a)(2), and similar to
criteria for actions that generally require an EIS currently in Part 6
at § 6.605(b)(2), with clarifications regarding conditions of
applicability; consolidated to clarify applicability to all EPA actions
subject to NEPA.

(ii) The proposed action is likely to directly, or through induced
development, have significant adverse effect upon local ambient air
quality or local ambient noise levels.

Substantially same as current Part 6, §§ 6.108(g) and 6.605(b)(2) with
clarifications regarding conditions of applicability; consolidated to
clarify applicability to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.

(iii) The proposed action is likely to have significant adverse effects
on surface water reservoirs or navigation projects.

Substantially same as current Part 6, § 6.605(b)(5), with
clarifications regarding conditions of applicability; consolidated to
clarify applicability to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.

(iv) The proposed action would be inconsistent with state or local
government, or federally-recognized Indian tribe approved land use plans
or regulations, or federal land management plans.

Substantially same as current Part 6, §§ 6.108(b) and 6.509(b), and
similar to criteria for actions that generally require EISs currently in
Part 6 at §§ 6.108(d) and (e), and 6.605(b)(3), with clarifications
regarding conditions of applicability; consolidated to clarify
applicability to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.



(v) The proposed action would be inconsistent with state or local
government, or federally-recognized Indian tribe environmental,
resource-protection, or land-use laws and regulations for protection of
the environment.

Substantially same as current Part 6, § 6.509(b), and similar to
criteria for actions that generally require EISs currently in Part 6 at
§ 6.108(d), with clarifications regarding conditions of applicability;
consolidated to clarify applicability to all EPA actions subject to
NEPA.

(vi) The proposed action is likely to significantly affect the
environment through the release of radioactive, hazardous or toxic
substances, or biota.

Substantially same as current Part 6, § 6.706(a)(1) and (2);
consolidated to clarify applicability to all EPA actions subject to
NEPA.

(vii) The proposed action involves uncertain environmental effects or
highly unique environmental risks that are likely to be significant.

Substantially same as current Part 6, § 6.706(a)(5); consolidated to
clarify applicability to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.

(viii) The proposed action is likely to significantly affect national
natural landmarks or any property on or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places.

Substantially same as current Part 6, §§ 6.108(f) and 6.605(b)(4),
with clarifications regarding conditions of applicability; consolidated
to clarify applicability to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.

(ix) The proposed action is likely to significantly affect
environmentally important natural resources such as wetlands,
significant agricultural lands, aquifer recharge zones, coastal zones,
barrier islands, wild and scenic rivers, and significant fish or
wildlife habitat.

Substantially same as current Part 6, § 6.108(c), (e)(3) and (4), and
(g), and §6.605(b)(2) and (5), with clarifications regarding conditions
of applicability; consolidated to clarify applicability to all EPA
actions subject to NEPA.

(x) The proposed action in conjunction with related federal, state or
local government, or federally-recognized Indian tribe projects is
likely to produce significant cumulative impacts.

Substantially the same as current Part 6, § 6.509(b); consolidated to
clarify applicability to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.

(xi) The proposed action is likely to significantly affect the pattern
and type of land use (industrial, commercial, recreational, residential)
or growth and distribution of population including altering the
character of existing residential areas.

Substantially the same as current Part 6, §§ 6.108(a) and 6.605(b);
consolidated to clarify applicability to all actions subject to NEPA.





	The final rule also includes minor, technical amendments to the
Agency’s procedures for implementing Executive Order 12114,
“Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions,” entitled in
EPA’s proposed regulations, “Assessing the Environmental Effects
Abroad of EPA Actions.”  Executive Order 12114 does not impose NEPA
compliance requirements on Federal agencies, rather it “furthers the
purpose” of NEPA and identifies the documents, including EISs and EAs,
to be used when conducting assessments under Executive Order 12114.  
The Executive Order is “... solely for the purpose of establishing
internal procedures for Federal agencies to consider the significant
effects of their actions on the environment outside the [U.S.], its
territories and possessions ...” [Executive 0rder 12114, Section 3-1])
 EPA actions subject to both Executive Order 12114 and NEPA are
generally documented using EPA’s NEPA implementing procedures.

	Responsible Official under the proposed rule is defined to mean the EPA
official responsible for compliance with NEPA for individual actions
(see final rule, §6.102(b)(9)).

	EPA’s current NEPA implementing regulations include a list of
projects which normally result in the preparation of an EA in Subpart G
– Environmental Review Procedures for Office of Research and
Development Projects, Section 6.705 – Environmental assessment and
finding of no significant impact.

	Certain EPA actions are exempt from the procedural requirements of NEPA
and the CEQ Regulations under EPA’s current NEPA implementing
regulations and remain exempt under EPA’s final regulations.  See
Attachment 1.

	Approximately 75% of EPA’s grants are under the STAG appropriations
account.  Certain line items in the STAG appropriations account are not
subject to NEPA (see Attachment 1).  Grantee actions subject to NEPA are
predominately under the STAG appropriations account (including
consideration of the Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Program
and other actions subject to NEPA, including those under the Agency’s
Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) account).

	For grantees, there may be a financial difference in that a grantee
generally may use EPA financial assistance to prepare an EID but not to
prepare a draft EA and supporting documents; for grantees, certain
third-party contractor costs may also be eligible for cost
reimbursement.  It has been EPA’s experience that grantees contract
directly for preparation of environmental information or use in-house
engineering contractors to prepare CE and EA documentation, without
seeking cost reimbursement.  Permit applicants are not eligible for EPA
financial assistance.

	For example, a grantee action for renovation of an existing wastewater
treatment or drinking water supply system may be categorically excluded.
 An EA may be required for a grantee action to construct a new sewage
treatment system in a small governmental jurisdiction; or to assess a
new source NPDES permit for a discharge from a concentrated animal
feeding operation for chickens, cattle, hogs or pigs.  An EIS may be
required for a grantee action to construct a new sewage treatment plant
with potential for significant impacts to wetlands, or cultural or
archaeological features; or to assess a new source NPDES permit for
discharges from an oil and gas extraction facility, or mining operation,
or a concentrated animal feeding operation with potential for
significant impacts to wetlands, or cultural or archaeological features,
or threatened or endangered species.

	Assistance agreement under the proposed rule is defined to mean an
award of federal assistance in the form of money or property in lieu of
money from EPA to an eligible recipient including grants and cooperative
agreements (see final rule, § 6.102(b)(3)).

	“Modernizing NEPA Implementation, Chapter 5, Categorical
Exclusions,” The NEPA Task Force Report to the Council on
Environmental Quality, September 2003.

 As defined in EPA’s On Site Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual
(EPA/625/R-00/008, February 2002), an on site system is a system relying
on natural processes and/or mechanical components that is used to
collect, treat, and disperse/discharge wastewater from single dwellings
or buildings.

	“Modernizing NEPA Implementation, Chapter 5, Categorical
Exclusions,” The NEPA Task Force Report to the Council on
Environmental Quality, September 2003.

	

 PAGE   10 

 PAGE   9 

 PAGE   23 

