[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6000-6005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-2450]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 372
[Docket No. 93-165-3]
RIN 0579-AA33
National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: These final procedures set forth the principles and practices
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service will follow to comply
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Council on
Environmental Quality regulations, and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act. These procedures replace APHIS Guidelines Concerning
Implementation of NEPA Procedures.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 3, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Robert E. Pizel, Branch Chief, Biotechnology, Biologics, and
Environmental Protection, APHIS, USDA, P.O. Drawer 810, Riverdale, MD
20738. The telephone number for the agency contact will change when
agency offices in Hyattsville, MD, move to Riverdale, MD, during
January 1995. Telephone: (301) 436-8565 (Hyattsville); (301) 734-8565
(Riverdale).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations of the President's Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) implementing section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy
Act (hereinafter referred to as NEPA) are applicable to and binding on
all agencies of the Federal Government. Pursuant to the CEQ
implementing regulations, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) is implementing procedures to ensure that its planning
and decisionmaking are in accordance with the policies and purposes of
NEPA. The CEQ implementing regulations direct that agencies shall
include, at a minimum, procedures required by 40 CFR 1501.2(d),
1502.9(c)(3), 1505.1, 1506.6(e), 1507.3(b)(2), and 1508.4
[[Page 6001]] (1992). APHIS' procedures supplant the APHIS Guidelines
Concerning Implementation of NEPA Procedures originally published in
the Federal Register on August 28, 1979 (44 FR 50381-50384) and
corrections as published in the Federal Register on August 31, 1979 (44
FR 51272-51274).
On June 3, 1994, we published in the Federal Register (59 FR 28814-
28821, Docket No. 93-165-1) proposed procedures implementing CEQ's NEPA
regulations. Comments on the proposed procedures were required to be
received on or before July 18, 1994. During the comment period, we
received a request from the Association of Natural Bio-control
Producers that we extend the comment period. The comment stated that
additional time was necessary to allow interested parties to evaluate
fully and respond to the proposed procedures. In response to this
comment, we published a notice in the Federal Register on July 22, 1994
(59 FR 37442, Docket No. 93-165-2), reopening and extending the comment
period until August 2, 1994.
We received seven comments by August 2, 1994, from the following
commenters: American Veterinary Medical Association; Asgrow Seed
Company; Association of Natural Bio-control Producers; Environmental
Defense Fund; State of California, Department of Food and Agriculture;
The Humane Society of the United States; and the Office of the
Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior. We carefully
considered all of the comments we received. Noteworthy issues that were
raised in comments--whether or not they prompted changes to the
proposed procedures--are developed below either under the appropriate
section headings or, if they do not fit within a section heading, under
the ``miscellaneous'' heading that follows. Sections 372.1 through
372.3 and 372.7 through 372.10 were not addressed in comments and,
except where language was modified to improve clarity or eliminate,
insofar as possible, ``jargon,'' remain as originally proposed.
Discussion of Issues
Definitions (Section 372.4)
One commenter, concerned that some language in the procedures is
too species-specific, has suggested that APHIS broaden significantly
its definition of ``environment.'' The term ``environment'' is not
defined in these procedures. CEQ's regulations provide that the term
```human environment' shall be interpreted comprehensively to include
the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people
with that environment.''\1\ In evaluating impacts of agency proposals
and exploring alternatives under NEPA, we are guided by CEQ's
interpretation of the term ``human environment.'' In certain cases,
limiting language is used in these procedures, not to circumscribe the
scope of required NEPA analysis, but in recognition of program
jurisdictional constraints. In no case is language employed to limit
APHIS' environmental responsibilities.
\1\40 CFR 1508.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Classification of Actions (Section 372.5)
One commenter has criticized the failure of this section to
distinguish consistently between specific criteria for and
identification of classes of action. He has also urged that examples
and classes of action be presented with much greater specificity. We
agree and have rewritten this section (the substance of which has not
been changed) in an attempt to accommodate those concerns and for
general clarification.
Categorically Excluded Actions
One commenter has asked who will make the decisions regarding what
is or is not categorically excluded. The decision in the first instance
belongs to program personnel who should be greatly assisted in that
effort through the rewrite of this section.
Another commenter is ``concerned about the possibility that APHIS
may, under the language now proposed, consider the seizure or removal
of wild animals from a population for such purposes as disease testing
as actions which are categorically excluded.'' The fact is that such
seizures or removals, which are generally very limited in scope and
humanely pursued, would seldom have the potential to affect
significantly the quality of the human environment.\2\
\2\If the animals to be tested were listed as endangered or
threatened by the Federal Government or otherwise protected (by
treaty, for example), then categorical exclusion would clearly not
be appropriate. In that case, the environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement process (as well as any other
required consultation or process) would be undertaken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter has inquired whether small-scale field tests of
genetically engineered plants is included as a categorically excluded
action under paragraph (c)(2), which provides an exclusion for
``[a]ctivities that are carried out in laboratories, facilities, or
other areas designed to eliminate the potential for harmful
environmental effects.'' In fact, the environmental assessment process
has been undertaken for hundreds of permits that have been issued to
conduct small-scale (or ``confined,'' as expressed in current
biotechnology literature) field tests of genetically engineered plants.
In every case a finding of no significant impact was reached, reason
enough to conclude that such tests ought to be categorically excluded.
To eliminate any confusion, this action (including ``notifications,''
which are little more than logical extensions) will be described
separately as an example of categorical exclusions under a retitled
paragraph (c)(3). We emphasize, in response to concerns raised by
another commenter on this subject, that this categorical exclusion
applies only to confined field tests; unconfined testing would not
qualify for categorical exclusion.
Two other commenters maintain that the movement and release of at
least some nonindigenous species also would qualify for categorical
exclusion under the same exclusion theory as small-scale field tests of
genetically engineered plants. We agree that categorical exclusion of
some nonindigenous species activities--movement to and from
``containment,'' as well as the release into a State's environment of
pure cultures of organisms that are either native or are established
introductions--is appropriate. These actions also will be described
separately as examples of categorical exclusions under paragraph
(c)(3).
Finally, the substance of paragraph (c)(3) of the proposed
procedures is provided as an example under paragraph (c)(1) of these
final procedures. The substance of paragraph (c)(5) of the proposed
procedures appears in these final procedures as paragraph (c)(3), which
has been retitled ``Licensing and permitting'' and expanded to include
activities described in the preceding two paragraphs.
Early Planning for Applicants and Non-APHIS Entities (Section 372.6)
One commenter has complained that the failure to develop ``the
necessary environmental data needs'' leaves potential applicants in the
dark. This situation, according to the commenter, could lead to
imposition of inconsistent and burdensome requirements. Data
requirements have indeed been developed for some agency programs.\3\
Other programs are in the process of incorporating such requirements
into their guidance.
\3\See for example, 7 CFR 340.4 (data requirements for
applications seeking authorization to introduce genetically
engineered organisms into the environment). [[Page 6002]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous
Appeals
One commenter has expressed concern about ``the absence of proposed
procedures to provide the public with an opportunity to appeal APHIS
decisions with which it disagrees.'' The appeal procedures, according
to that commenter, should be made a part of the agency's NEPA
procedures so that the public will not be forced ``to seek judicial
review as the first and only response to inadequate NEPA documents.''
We do not believe that the agency's NEPA procedures should be the
vehicle through which APHIS decisions may be appealed. These procedures
are designed to complement the CEQ regulations and to ensure that the
NEPA process aids this agency's decisionmaking and contributes to
public understanding of APHIS' duties and functions at all levels of
administrative action. It is through NEPA's public process that the
best possible documentation will be prepared; turning that process into
a form of adjudication will do nothing to enhance document quality.
Emergencies
The agency has been urged by one commenter to address
``emergencies'' in its NEPA procedures. It has been recommended that
(1) the term ``emergency'' be defined as ``a situation or occurrence of
an extremely serious nature that has developed suddenly and
unexpectedly and requires immediate action to address a serious threat
to life or property,'' and (2) a provision be added to the procedures
that would require the agency to consult with CEQ in emergency
circumstances ``as soon as possible about alternative arrangements for
compliance with NEPA.''
The CEQ regulations, which deal expressly with ``emergency
circumstances,'' have been (and will continue to be) complied with by
APHIS as necessary. Duplicating the CEQ ``emergency'' regulations here
would serve no useful purpose; indeed, we are discouraged from doing
so.\4\
\4\See 40 CFR 1507.3 (``Such procedures shall not paraphrase
these regulations').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Issues
One commenter has expressed concern that Executive Order 12778
``moves all decision making and document preparation to the highest
possible level--USDA national staff in Hyattsville'' and that the
executive order is at ``odds with CEQA [California Environmental
Quality Act], and leaves [California citizens and officials] open to
limitation under CEQA despite having met NEPA standards.''
The notice of proposed rulemaking merely recited how these
procedures are affected by Executive Order 12778, which we cannot
disavow. But the fact is that APHIS has not centralized environmental
decisionmaking; on the contrary, environmental decisionmaking at this
agency is in the process of being decentralized. Furthermore, it is
doubtful that California's CEQA would be found to be in ``conflict''
with this agency's procedures. Nevertheless, principles of federalism
permit suits to be brought in State court under State law whether or
not there is compliance with a counterpart Federal statute.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule
has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive
Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
These procedures satisfy the requirement to implement CEQ's NEPA
regulations and have been designed to reduce to a minimum the
regulatory burden on small entities and all other individuals and
organizations, public and private.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that these procedures
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
Executive Order 12372
This program/activity is listed in the catalogy of Federal Domestic
Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive 12372, which
requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.
(See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)
Executive Order 12778
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule (1) Preempts all State and local laws and
regulations that are in conflict with these procedures; (2) has no
retroactive effect; and (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not
require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in
court challenging this rule.
The National Environmental Policy Act
Implementation of these procedures willl not significantly impact
the quality of the human environment.
Paperwork Reduction Act
These procedures contain no information collection or recordkeeping
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 372
Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental assessment,
Environmental impact statement, and National Environmental Policy Act.
Accordingly, title 7, chapter III, of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended by adding a new part 372 to read as follows:
PART 372--NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES
Sec.
372.1 Purpose.
372.2 Designation of responsible APHIS official.
372.3 Information and assistance.
372.4 Definitions.
372.5 Classification of actions.
372.6 Early planning for applicants and non-APHIS entities.
372.7 Consultation.
372.8 Major planning and decision points and public involvement.
372.9 Processing and use of environmental documents.
372.10 Supplementing environmental impact statements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 40 CFR parts 1500-1508; 7 CFR
parts 1b, 2.17, 2.51, 371.2, 371.2(m), 371.13(d), and 371.14(b).
Sec. 372.1 Purpose.
These procedures implement section 102(2) of the National
Environmental Policy Act by assuring early and adequate consideration
of environmental factors in Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
planning and decisionmaking and by promoting the effective, efficient
integration of all relevant environmental requirements under the
National Environmental Policy Act. The goal of timely, relevant
environmental analysis will be secured principally by adhering to the
National Environmental Policy Act implementing regulations (40 CFR
parts 1500-1508), especially provisions pertaining to timing
(Sec. 1502.5), integration (Sec. 1502.25), and scope of analysis
(Sec. 1508.25).
Sec. 372.2 Designation of responsible APHIS official.
The Administrator of APHIS, or an agency official to whom the
Administrator may formally delegate the task, is responsible for
overall review of APHIS' NEPA compliance. [[Page 6003]]
Sec. 372.3 Information and assistance.
Information, including the status of studies, and the availability
of reference materials, as well as the informal interpretations of
APHIS' NEPA procedures and other forms of assistance, will be made
available upon request to Environmental Analysis and Documentation,
Biotechnology, Biologics, and Environmental Protection, APHIS, USDA,
P.O. Drawer 810, Riverdale MD 20738, (301) 436-8565 (Hyattsville) or
(301) 734-8565 (Riverdale).
Sec. 372.4 Definitions.
The terminology set forth in the Council on Environmental Quality's
(CEQ) implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1508 is incorporated
herein. In addition, the following terms, as used in these procedures,
are defined as follows:
APHIS. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).
Decisionmaker. The agency official responsible for executing
findings of no significant impact in the environmental assessment
process and the record of decision in the environmental impact
statement process.
Department. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Environmental unit. Environmental Analysis and Documentation, the
analytical unit in Biotechnology, Biologics, and Environmental
Protection responsible for coordinating APHIS' compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act and other environmental laws and
regulations.
Sec. 372.5 Classification of actions.
(a) Actions normally requiring environmental impact statements.
This class of policymakings and rulemakings seeks to establish
programmatic approaches to animal and plant health issues. Actions in
this class typically involve the agency, an entire program, or a
substantial program component and are characterized by their broad
scope (often global or nationwide) and potential effect (impacting a
wide range of environmental quality values or indicators, whether or
not affected individuals or systems may be completely identified at the
time). Ordinarily, new or untried methodologies, strategies, or
techniques to deal with pervasive threats to animal and plant health
are the subjects of this class of actions. Alternative means of dealing
with those threats usually have not been well developed. Actions in
this class include:
(1) Formulation of contingent response strategies to combat future
widespread outbreaks of animal and plant diseases; and
(2) Adoption of strategic or other long-range plans that purport to
adopt for future program application a preferred course of action.
(b) Actions normally requiring environmental assessments but not
necessarily environmental impact statements. This class of APHIS
actions may involve the agency as a whole or an entire program, but
generally is related to a more discrete program component and is
characterized by its limited scope (particular sites, species, or
activities) and potential effect (impacting relatively few
environmental values or systems). Individuals and systems that may be
affected can be identified. Methodologies, strategies, and techniques
employed to deal with the issues at hand are seldom new or untested.
Alternative means of dealing with those issues are well established.
Mitigation measures are generally available and have been successfully
employed. Actions in this class include:
(1) Policymakings and rulemakings that seek to remedy specific
animal and plant health risks or that may affect opportunities on the
part of the public to influence agency environmental planning and
decisionmaking. Examples of this category of actions include:
(i) Development of program plans that seek to adopt strategies,
methods, and techniques as the means of dealing with particular animal
and plant health risks that may arise in the future;
(ii) Implementation of program plans at the site-specific, action
level, except for actions that are categorically excluded, as provided
in paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) Planning, design, construction, or acquisition of new
facilities, or proposals for modifications to existing facilities.
(3) Disposition of waste and other hazardous or toxic materials at
laboratories and other APHIS facilities, except for actions that are
categorically excluded, as provided in paragraph (c) of this section.
(4) Approvals and issuance of permits for proposals involving
genetically engineered or nonindigenous species, except for actions
that are categorically excluded, as provided in paragraph (c) of this
section.
(5) Research or testing that:
(i) Will be conducted outside of a laboratory or other containment
area (field trials, for example); or
(ii) Reaches a stage of development (e.g., formulation of
premarketing strategies) that forecasts an irretrievable commitment to
the resulting products or technology.
(c) Categorically excluded actions. This class of APHIS actions
shares many of the same characteristics--particularly in terms of the
extent of program involvement, as well as the scope, effect of, and the
availability of alternatives to proposed actions--as the class of
actions that normally requires environmental assessments but not
necessarily environmental impact statements. The major difference is
that the means through which adverse environmental impacts may be
avoided or minimized have actually been built right into the actions
themselves. The efficacy of this approach generally has been
established through testing and/or monitoring. The Department of
Agriculture has also promulgated a listing of categorical exclusions
that are applicable to all agencies within the department unless their
procedures provide otherwise. Those categorical exclusions, codified at
7 CFR 1b.3(a), are entirely appropriate for APHIS. Other actions in
this class include:
(1) Routine measures. (i) Routine measures, such as
identifications, inspections, surveys, sampling that does not cause
physical alteration of the environment, testing, seizures, quarantines,
removals, sanitizing, inoculations, control, and monitoring employed by
agency programs to pursue their missions and functions. Such measures
may include the use--according to any label instructions or other
lawful requirements and consistent with standard, published program
practices and precautions--of chemicals, pesticides, or other
potentially hazardous or harmful substances, materials, and target-
specific devices or remedies, provided that such use meets all of the
following criteria (insofar as they may pertain to a particular
action):
(A) The use is localized or contained in areas where humans are not
likely to be exposed, and is limited in terms of quantity, i.e.,
individualized dosages and remedies;
(B) The use will not cause contaminants to enter water bodies,
including wetlands;
(C) The use does not adversely affect any federally protected
species or critical habitat; and
(D) The use does not cause bioaccumulation.
(ii) Examples of routine measures include:
(A) Inoculation or treatment of discrete herds of livestock or
wildlife undertaken in contained areas (such as a barn or corral, a
zoo, an exhibition, or an aviary);
(B) Pesticide treatments applied to infested plants at a nursery;
and
(C) Isolated (for example, along a highway) weed control
efforts. [[Page 6004]]
(2) Research and development activities. (i) Activities that are
carried out in laboratories, facilities, or other areas designed to
eliminate the potential for harmful environmental effects--internal or
external--and to provide for lawful waste disposal.
(ii) Examples of this category of actions include:
(A) The development and/or production (including formulation,
repackaging, movement, and distribution) of previously approved and/or
licensed program materials, devices, reagents, and biologics;
(B) Research, testing, and development of animal repellents; and
(C) Development and production of sterile insects.
(3) Licensing and permitting. (i) Issuance of a license, permit, or
authorization to ship for field testing previously unlicensed
veterinary biological products;
(ii) Permitting, or acknowledgment of notifications for, confined
field releases of genetically engineered organisms and products; and
(iii) Permitting of:
(A) Importation of nonindigenous species into containment
facilities,
(B) Interstate movement of nonindigenous species between
containment facilities, or
(C) Releases into a State's environment of pure cultures of
organisms that are either native or are established introductions.
(4) Rehabilitation of facilities. Rehabilitation of existing
laboratories and other APHIS facilities, functional replacement of
parts and equipment, and minor additions to such existing APHIS
facilities.
(d) Exceptions for categorically excluded actions. Whenever the
decisionmaker determines that a categorically excluded action may have
the potential to affect ``significantly'' the quality of the ``human
environment,'' as those terms are defined at 40 CFR 1508.27 and
1508.14, respectively, and environmental assessment or an environmental
impact statement will be prepared. For example:
(1) When any routine measure, the incremental impact of which, when
added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions
(regardless of what agency or person undertakes such actions), has the
potential for significant environmental impact;
(2) When a previously licensed or approved biologic has been
subsequently shown to be unsafe, or will be used at substantially
higher dosage levels or for substantially different applications or
circumstances than in the use for which the product was previously
approved;
(3) When a previously unlicensed veterinary biological product to
be shipped for field testing contains live microorganisms or will not
be used exclusively for in vitro diagnostic testing; or
(4) When a confined field release of genetically engineered
organisms or products involves new species or organisms or novel
modifications that raise new issues.
Sec. 372.6 Early planning for applicants and non-APHIS entities.
Each prospective applicant who anticipates the need for approval of
proposed activities classified as normally requiring environmental
documentation is encouraged to contact, at the earliest opportunities,
APHIS' program staff.
Sec. 372.7 Consultation.
Prospective applicants are encouraged to contact APHIS programs
officials to determine what types of environmental analyses or
documentation, if any, need to be prepared. NEPA documents will
incorporate, to the fullest extent possible, surveys and studies
required by other environmental statutes, such as the Endangered
Species Act.
Sec. 372.8 Major planning and decision points and public involvement.
(a) Major planning and decisions points. The NEPA process will be
fully coordinated with APHIS planning in cooperation with program
personnel. Specific decision points or milestones will be identified
and communicated to the public and others in a notice of intent and in
the context of the public scoping process.
(b) Public involvement. There will be an early and open process for
determining the scope of issues to be addressed in the environmental
impact statement process.
(1) A notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement
will be published in the Federal Register as soon as it is determined
that a proposed major Federal action has the potential to affect
significantly the quality of the human environment. The notice may
include a preliminary scope of environmental study. All public and
other involvement in APHIS' environmental impact statement process,
including the scoping process, commenting on draft documents, and
participation in the preparation of any supplemental documents, will be
pursuant to CEQ's implementing regulations.
(2) Opportunities for public involvement in the environmental
assessment process will be announced in the same fashion as the
availability of environmental assessments and findings of no
significant impact.
(3) Notification of the availability of environmental assessments
and findings of no significant impact for proposed activities will be
published in the Federal Register, unless it is determined that the
effects of the action are primarily of regional or local concern. Where
the effects of the action are primarily of regional or local concern,
notice will normally be provided through publication in a local or area
newspaper of general circulation and/or the procedures implementing
Executive Order 12372, ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs.''
(4) All environmental documents, comments received, and any
underlying documents, including interagency correspondence where such
correspondence transmits comments of Federal agencies on the
environmental impact of proposals for which documents were prepared
(except for privileged or confidential information (50 FR 38561)), will
be made available to the public upon request. Materials to be made
available will be provided without charge, to the extent practicable,
or at a fee not more than the actual cost of reproducing copies
required to be sent to other Federal agencies, including CEQ.
Sec. 372.9 Processing and use of environmental documents.
(a) Environmental assessments will be forwarded immediately upon
completion to the decisionmaker for a determination of whether the
proposed action may have significant effects on the quality of the
human environment, and for the execution, as appropriate, of a finding
of no significant impact or a notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement.
(1) The availability of environmental assessments will be announced
by publishing a notice consistent with the notification provisions of
Sec. 372.8.
(2) Comments, if any, will be transmitted, together with any
analyses and recommendations, to the APHIS decisionmaker who may then
take appropriate action.
(3) Changes to environmental assessments and findings of no
significant impact that are prompted by comments, new information, or
any other source, will normally be announced in the same manner as the
notice of availability (except that all commenters will be mailed
copies of changes directly) prior to implementing the proposed action
or any alternative. [[Page 6005]]
(b) Environmental impact statements will be processed from
inception (publication of the notice of intent) to completion
(publication of a final environmental impact statement or a supplement)
according to the Council on Environmental Quality implementing
regulations.
(c) For rulemaking or adjudicatory proceedings, relevant
environmental documents, comments, and responses will be a part of the
administrative record.
(d) For all APHIS activity that is subject to the NEPA process,
relevant environmental documents, comments, and responses will
accompany proposals through the review process.
(e) The APHIS decisionmaker will consider the alternatives
discussed in environmental documents in reaching a determination on the
merits of proposed actions.
(f) APHIS will implement mitigation and other conditions
established in environmental documentation and committed to as part of
the decisionmaking process.
Sec. 372.10 Supplementing environmental impact statements.
Once a decision to supplement an environmental impact statement is
made, a notice of intent will be published. The administrative record
will thereafter be open. The supplemental document will then be
processed in the same fashion (exclusive of scoping) as a draft and a
final statement (unless alternative procedures are approved by CEQ) and
will become part of the administrative record.
Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of January 1995.
Terry L. Medley,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 95-2450 Filed 1-31-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-M
