99-17684. Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP)  

  • [Federal Register Volume 64, Number 135 (Thursday, July 15, 1999)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 38127-38143]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 99-17684]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
    
    Department of the Air Force
    
    32 CFR Part 989
    
    RIN: 0701-AA56
    
    
    Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP)
    
    AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, DoD.
    
    ACTION: Final rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: The Department of the Air Force has revised its instruction to 
    improve the Air Force process for compliance with the National 
    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Executive Order (E.O.) 12114, 
    Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions. The revisions 
    integrate environmental analysis and align environmental document 
    approval levels with the Air Force decision-making process. It also 
    expands Air Force environmental participants and responsibilities of 
    the Environmental Planning Function (EPF) and the proponent of an 
    action.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 1999.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jack C. Bush (HQ USAF/ILEVP), 1260 
    Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1260, (703) 604-0553.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of the Air Force has 
    determined that this rule is not a major rule because it will not have 
    an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The Secretary 
    of the Air Force has certified that this rule is exempt from the 
    requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, 
    because this rule does not have a significant economic impact on small 
    entities as defined by the Act, and does not impose any obligatory 
    information requirements beyond internal Air Force use.
    
    Responses to Proposed Rule 32 CFR Part 989
    
    Discussion of Major Issues
    
        Comment: Commenters recommend that paragraph (r) in the Discussion 
    of Major Issues that Secs. 989.18(b), 989.19(c)(3), and Sec. A2.2.8 of 
    Attachment B\1\ be changed to refer to disproportionately high and 
    adverse human health or environmental effects on ``minority or low-
    income populations.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\ Note: Attachments 1, 2, and 3 in the proposed rule published 
    December 24, 1997 (62 FR 67305) have been redesignated as Appendices 
    A, B, and C to conform to Federal Register style.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Response: Accepted. This change is necessary to be consistent with 
    E.O. 12898 on environmental justice. A population can be low income and 
    not minority and visa versa.
    1. Responsibilities
        Comment: Commenters state that the Air Force needed to include a 
    special provision regarding government-to-government relations with 
    federally recognized Indian tribes, consistent with the special role 
    for tribes under the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 
    regulations, in order to assess the impacts of federal actions on 
    tribal resources.
        Response: Section 989.3(c)(4) includes Tribal governments as key 
    participants in the Air Force environmental impact analysis process. 
    Additionally, Sec. 989.1(b) states that the CEQ regulations and this 
    proposed document must be used together in order to comply with NEPA. 
    Individually and in combination with the CEQ regulations, this final 
    rule provides for proper tribal involvement.
    2. Requests From Non-Air Force Agencies or Entities
        Comment: Commenters recommend clarifying the use of the term 
    ``proponent,'' in particular ``proponents'' that are non-Air Force 
    entities, in the final rule.
        Response: The term ``proponent'' throughout the document, as 
    defined in Attachment 1, refers to the office, unit, or activity that 
    proposes to initiate an action. The ``proponent'' may not always be an 
    Air Force organization. When an action affects Air Force properties or 
    programs, the ``proponent'' organizations must comply with Sec. 989.7. 
    However, we changed references from ``proponent'' to ``Air Force'' or 
    the appropriate Air Force organization in order to clarify 
    Secs. 989.8(b), 989.14(l), and Sec. 989.19(b).
        Comment: Commenters recommend adding the following statement: ``For 
    EAs the Air Force must make its own evaluation of the environmental 
    issues and take responsibility for the scope and content of the 
    Environmental Assessment.''
        Response: Accepted. Section 989.7(b) allows the Air Force to ask 
    the requester to provide an analysis of the environmental impacts. 
    However, as stated in Sec. 989.7(c), the Air Force must independently 
    evaluate and approve the scope and content of the analyses before using 
    the analyses to fulfill environmental impact analysis process 
    requirements.
        Comment: Commenters recommend adding the following statement 
    related to requests from non-Air Force agencies or entities: ``EISs 
    must be prepared directly by the Air Force or a contractor selected by 
    the Air Force or where appropriate under 40 CFR 1501.6(b), a 
    cooperating agency.''
        Response: Accepted. Section 989.7(b) states an EA or EIS can be 
    prepared by either the Air Force or a contractor that is selected and 
    supervised by the Air Force.
        3. Analysis of Alternatives
        Comment: Commenters recommend adding the word ``explicitly'' to the 
    Sec. 989.8(c) to change the phrase to read: ``Except in those rare 
    instances where explicitly excused by law . . .''
        Response: The language in Sec. 989.8(c), as currently stated, 
    sufficiently highlights the legally narrow exceptions where the 
    environmental impacts of no-action alternatives are not considered.
    4. Cooperation and Adoption
        Comment: Commenters recommend that Sec. 989.9 should include a 
    requirement for the Air Force to advocate for serving as a cooperating 
    agency for those environmental documents that it intends to later 
    adopt. Otherwise, such documents must follow appropriate CEQ guidelines 
    for recirculating the documents.
        Response: The language in Sec. 989.9, as currently stated, 
    sufficiently addresses the requirement to serve as a cooperating agency 
    or to otherwise follow the appropriate CEQ guidelines for environmental 
    documents that the Air Force intends to later adopt.
    5. Categorical Exclusion
        Comment: Commenters note that Sec. 989.13(e) references 
    Sec. 989.28. Recommend the reference be made to Sec. 989.30.
        Response: Accepted.
        Comment: Commenters contend that it is unclear how the Air Force is 
    determining no significance in terms of categorical exclusions, and 
    request that the Air Force define existing environment.
        Response: The Air Force decided not to define the phrase as 
    requested. The Air Force agrees that the term ``existing environment'' 
    may have different
    
    [[Page 38128]]
    
    meanings in different circumstances. The term may, for example, 
    sometimes include expected future conditions as well as existing 
    conditions. The Air Force prefers that those performing the analysis 
    apply judgment about this on a case-by-case basis, taking into account 
    the nature and context of the proposed action. Further, the purpose of 
    Sec. 989.13(b) is to identify the various characteristics of actions 
    that usually do not require an EA or an EIS. Section 989.13(b) is 
    intended to identify those actions that usually do not warrant further 
    environmental analysis because they do not meaningfully change the 
    status quo. It would undercut the intent of the paragraph were 
    ``existing environment'' here defined to include something other than 
    the status quo. Nor is it necessary to do so to avoid overlooking 
    potentially significant impacts, since Appendix B, Sec. A2.2 already 
    addresses those extraordinary situations where a normally excluded 
    action may have a significant environmental effect. For similar 
    reasons, the Air Force also has decided not to change the wording of 
    Secs. A2.3.7 and A2.3.11.
    6. Environmental Assessment
        Comment: Commenters recommend the phrase ``no decision'' in 
    Sec. 989.14(a) be clarified.
        Response: We agree that the phrase ``no decision'' should be 
    replaced with ``no action.'' We updated Sec. 989.14(a) accordingly.
        Comment: Commenters indicate that many Native American interests 
    may not be adequately represented by working only with Tribal 
    governments. They recommend broadening involvement of Native Americans 
    in the EIAP, where appropriate, to consider all Native Americans.
        Response: Section 989.14(l) states the Air Force proponent will 
    involve other federal agencies, state, Tribal, and local governments, 
    and the public in the preparation of the EAs. As written, the final 
    rule considers input from Tribal governments and the public as a whole 
    in the EIAP. This comprehensive engagement provides for broad 
    involvement of all Native Americans, through both Tribal governments 
    and individual Native Americans.
        Comment: Commenters state that the document uses the word 
    mitigation, but Appendix A does not include a definition for 
    mitigation. They recommend clarification of the term mitigation, make 
    the definition explicit that if it is a mitigated FONSI, that 
    significant impacts were noted but reduce to the insignificant level.
        Response: We adopt the definition of the term mitigation from 40 
    CFR 1508.20. As defined, mitigation includes avoidance, minimization, 
    restoration, preservation, and compensation. Additionally, the EA and 
    unsigned FONSI of an action that is mitigated to insignificance are 
    made available for public review for at least 30 days before FONSI 
    approval, in accordance with Sec. 989.15(e)(2)(iv).
    7. Finding of No Significant Impact
        Comment: Commenters note Sec. 989.15(5)(d) references Sec. 989.23. 
    Recommend the reference be made to Sec. 989.24.
        Response: Accepted.
        Comment: Commenters recommend adding the following phrase in 
    Sec. 989.15(e)(2), ``and appropriate resource agencies be notified.''
        Response: The Air Force involves resource agencies as a standard 
    procedure from the beginning and throughout the entire EIAP process. 
    Therefore, we read Sec. 989.15(e)(2) to be appropriate as written.
    8. Environmental Impact Statement
        Comment: Commenters note that Sec. 989.16(b)(1) states that, if 
    there are public land withdrawals of over 5,000 acres, an EIS is 
    normally required. They recommend adding the following, ``unless, of 
    course, if there is significance for under 5,000, then an EIS would be 
    required.''
        Response: Section 989.14(a) states that every EA must lead to 
    either a FONSI, a decision to prepare an EIS, or no action on the 
    proposal. Therefore, an EA would include a FONSI, a decision to prepare 
    EIS, or a decision to take no action on the proposal.
    9. Record of Decision (ROD)
        Comment: Commenters recommend in Sec. 989.21 that the Air Force 
    should note the CEQ requirement that no ROD can be issued on a proposed 
    action until the later of the following dates: (1) 90 days after 
    publication of the DEIS; or (2) 30 days after publication of the FEIS.
        Response: Accepted.
    10. Classified Actions (40 CFR 1507.3(c))
        Comment: Regarding Sec. 989.26, Classified Actions, commenters 
    recommend that the Air Force should make the EPA guidance on reviewing 
    classified NEPA documents available to appropriate Air Force officials 
    and staff to ensure appropriate EPA staff are included in the 
    classified review process.
        Response: We appreciate this recommendation and will note its merit 
    in ensuring Air Force officials are aware of and follow appropriate EPA 
    guidance.
    11. Air Quality
        Comment: Commenters suggest that the Air Force may want to allow 
    more flexibility to air quality (Sec. 989.30) conformity analysis to 
    either be developed parallel with EIAP, or prepared later when the 
    alternative has been selected.
        Response: Air conformity analysis has been a critical component of 
    the EIAP and is often a significant constraint in Air Force planning. 
    Therefore, air conformity must remain an integral component of the 
    EIAP--not as a separate, parallel, or subsequent process.
    12. Noise
        Comment: Commenters recommend additional or alternative analysis 
    for noise effects for the special nature of the national parks system 
    and their special legislative mandates.
        Response: The Air Force currently includes analysis on the impacts 
    of noise during the Environmental Impact Analysis Process. The Air 
    Force will continue to work with other agencies to address analysis of 
    specific situations and potential noise impacts in general.
    13. Environmental Justice
        Comment: Commenters recommended using the phrases ``minority 
    populations and low-income populations'' or ``minority populations or 
    low-income populations'' to be consistent with E.O. 12898 on 
    environmental justice.
        Response: Accepted.
    14. Appendix B--Categorical Exclusions
        Comment: Commenters recommend deleting the last three words of 
    Sec. A2.1: ``. . . and so on.''
        Response: Accepted.
        Comment: Commenters recommend the Air Force clarify Sec. A2.3.18 to 
    account for instances where the administrative transfer may require a 
    NEPA document.
        Response: As the commenters indicate, some actions, normally 
    categorically excluded, may have a significant environmental impact 
    that may generate a requirement for further environmental analysis, per 
    Secs. A2.1 and A2.2. As written, the final rule provides appropriate 
    guidance for actions, normally categorically excluded, that may have 
    significant impacts in actuality. The responsibility for performing 
    additional analysis is incumbent upon the environmental planning 
    function, which must consider each action on a case by case basis.
    
    [[Page 38129]]
    
        Comment: Commenters recommend the Air Force add a statement about 
    hazardous waste disposal activities, and clarify how the Air Force 
    intends to deal with transportation issues associated with hazardous 
    materials and wastes.
        Response: Consideration of hazardous waste disposal sites are 
    important and require an EA. However, a special provision for 
    discussion of hazardous waste disposal activities is not a topic that 
    is appropriate for consideration in this final rule. Per Secs. A2.1, 
    A2.2, and Sec. A2.3.28, transportation issues associated with hazardous 
    materials typically qualify for categorical exclusion. However, actions 
    that may have a significant environmental impact may require further 
    environmental analysis. As written, the final rule provides for 
    appropriate discussion of transportation issues associated with 
    hazardous materials and wastes.
        Comment: Commenters recommend the Air Force request written 
    concurrence from the superintendent of any affected National Park 
    Service units in determining ``minimal adverse effect on environmental 
    quality,'' regarding categorical exclusions.
        Response: Per Secs. A2.1 and A2.2, actions that qualify for 
    categorical exclusions must still comply with all other related 
    environmental requirements, such as regulatory agency review of plans. 
    Actions, normally categorically excluded, may have a significant 
    environmental impact that may generate a requirement for further 
    environmental analysis. As written, the final rule provides for 
    appropriate involvement of affected agency officials, such as a 
    superintendent of a National Park Service unit.
        Comment: Commenters indicate in Secs. A2.3.35 and A2.3.36 that it 
    cannot always be assumed that flights at 3,000 feet or higher above 
    ground level will have insignificant impacts on federal lands. This is 
    especially true if ``above ground level'' is interpreted literally, 
    rather than ``above the highest rims of canyons or valleys'' as in FAA 
    Advisory Circular 91-36C, and if it does not include a horizontal 
    separation in addition to the vertical separation. Recommend adding, 
    ``except where Federal lands are involved, unless the Federal land 
    manager agrees in writing that a categorical exclusion is 
    appropriate.''
        Response: Per Secs. A2.1 and A2.2, actions that qualify for 
    categorical exclusions must still comply with all other related 
    environmental requirements, such as regulatory agency review of plans. 
    Actions, normally categorically excluded, may have a significant 
    environmental impact that may generate a requirement for further 
    environmental analysis. As written, the final rule provides for 
    appropriate involvement of affected agency officials, such as Federal 
    land managers.
    
    List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 989
    
        Environmental Protection, Environmental Impact Statements.
    
        Therefore 32 CFR Part 989 is revised to read as follows:
    
    PART 989--ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PROCESS (EIAP)
    
    Sec.
    
    989.1  Purpose.
    989.2  Concept.
    989.3  Responsibilities.
    989.4  Initial considerations.
    989.5  Organizational relationships.
    989.6  Budgeting and funding.
    989.7  Requests from Non-Air Force agencies or entities.
    989.8  Analysis of alternatives.
    989.9  Cooperation and adoption.
    989.10  Tiering.
    989.11  Combining EIAP with other documentation.
    989.12  AF Form 813, Request for Environmental Impact Analysis.
    989.13  Categorical exclusion.
    989.14  Environmental assessment.
    989.15  Finding of no significant impact.
    989.16  Environmental impact statement.
    989.17  Notice of intent.
    989.18  Scoping.
    989.19  Draft EIS.
    989.20  Final EIS.
    989.21  Record of decision (ROD).
    989.22  Mitigation.
    989.23  Contractor prepared documents.
    989.24  Public notification.
    989.25  Base closure and realignment.
    989.26  Classified actions (40 CFR 1507.3(c)).
    989.27  Occupational safety and health.
    989.28  Airspace and range proposals.
    989.29  Force structure and unit move proposals.
    989.30  Air quality.
    989.31  Pollution prevention.
    989.32  Noise.
    989.33  Environmental justice.
    989.34  Special and emergency procedures.
    989.35  Reporting requirements.
    989.36  Waivers.
    989.37  Procedures for analysis abroad.
    989.38  Requirements for analysis abroad.
    Appendix A to Part 989--Glossary of References, Abbreviations, 
    Acronyms, and Terms.
    Appendix B to Part 989--Categorical Exclusions.
    Appendix C to Part 989--Procedures for Holding Public Hearings on 
    Draft Environmental Impact Statements (EIS).
    
        Authority: 10 U.S.C. 8013.
    
    
    Sec. 989.1  Purpose.
    
        (a) This part implements the Air Force Environmental Impact 
    Analysis Process (EIAP) and provides procedures for environmental 
    impact analysis both within the United States and abroad. Because the 
    authority for, and rules governing, each aspect of the EIAP differ 
    depending on whether the action takes place in the United States or 
    outside the United States, this part provides largely separate 
    procedures for each type of action. Consequently, the main body of this 
    part deals primarily with environmental impact analysis under the 
    authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 
    (Public Law 91-190, 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) Sections 4321 
    through 4347), while the primary procedures for environmental impact 
    analysis of actions outside the United States in accordance with 
    Executive Order (E.O.) 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major 
    Federal Actions, are contained in Secs. 989.32 and 989.33.
        (b) The procedures in this part are essential to achieve and 
    maintain compliance with NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality 
    (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the 
    NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1508, referred to as the ``CEQ 
    Regulations''). Further requirements are contained in Department of 
    Defense Directive (DoDD) 4715.1, Environmental Security, Department of 
    Defense Instruction (DoDI) 4715.9, Environmental Planning and Analysis, 
    DoDD 5000.1, Defense Acquisition, and Department of Defense Regulation 
    5000.2-R, Mandatory Procedures for Major Defense Acquisition Programs 
    and Major Automated Information Systems.\1\ To comply with NEPA and 
    complete the EIAP, the CEQ Regulations and this part must be used 
    together.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\ Copies of the publications are available, at cost, from the 
    National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
    5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        (c) Air Force activities abroad will comply with this part, E. O. 
    12114, and 32 CFR Part 187 (DoDD 6050.7, Environmental Effects Abroad 
    of Major Department of Defense Actions, March 31, 1979). To comply with 
    E.O. 12114 and complete the EIAP, the Executive Order, 32 CFR Part 187, 
    and this part must be used together.
        (d) Appendix A is a glossary of references, abbreviations, 
    acronyms, and terms. Refer to 40 CFR 1508 for definitions of other 
    terminology used in this part.
    
    
    Sec. 989.2  Concept.
    
        (a) This part provides a framework on how to comply with NEPA and 
    E.O. 12114 according to Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 32-70 \2\. 
    The Air Force specific procedures and requirements in
    
    [[Page 38130]]
    
    this part are intended to be used by Air Force decision-makers to fully 
    comply with NEPA and the EIAP.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \2\ See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        (b) Major commands (MAJCOM) provide additional implementing 
    guidance in their supplemental publications to this part. MAJCOM 
    supplements must identify the specific offices that have implementation 
    responsibility and include any guidance needed to comply with this 
    part. All references to MAJCOMs in this part include the Air National 
    Guard Readiness Center (ANGRC) and other agencies designated as 
    ``MAJCOM equivalent'' by HQ USAF.
    
    
    Sec. 989.3  Responsibilities.
    
        (a) Office of the Secretary of the Air Force:
        (1) The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
    Environment, Safety and Occupational Health (SAF/MIQ):
        (i) Develops environmental planning policy and provides oversight 
    of the EIAP program.
        (ii) Determines the level of environmental analysis required for 
    especially important, visible, or controversial Air Force proposals and 
    approves selected Environmental Assessments (EAs) and all Environmental 
    Impact Statements (EISs) prepared for Air Force actions, whether 
    classified or unclassified, except as specified in paragraph (c)(3) of 
    this section.
        (iii) Is the liaison on environmental matters with Federal agencies 
    and national level public interest organizations.
        (iv) Ensures appropriate offices in the Office of the Secretary of 
    Defense are kept informed on EIAP matters of Defense-wide interest.
        (2) The General Counsel (SAF/GC). Provides final legal advice to 
    SAF/MI, HQ USAF, and HQ USAF Environment, Safety and Occupational 
    Health Committee (ESOHC) on EIAP issues.
        (3) Office of Legislative Liaison (SAF/LL):
        (i) Assists with narrowing and defining key issues by arranging 
    consultations with congressional delegations on potentially sensitive 
    actions.
        (ii) Distributes draft and final EISs to congressional delegations.
        (iii) Reviews and provides the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
    (OSD) with analyses of the Air Force position on proposed and enrolled 
    legislation and executive department testimony dealing with EIAP 
    issues.
        (4) Office of Public Affairs (SAF/PA):
        (i) Reviews and clears environmental documents in accordance with 
    Air Force Instruction (AFI) 35-205, Air Force Security and Policy 
    Review \3\ prior to public release.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \3\ See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        (ii) Assists the environmental planning function and the Air Force 
    Legal Services Agency, Trial Judiciary Division (AFLSA/JAJT), in 
    planning and conducting public scoping meetings and hearings.
        (iii) Ensures that public affairs aspects of all EIAP actions are 
    conducted in accordance with this part and AFI 35-202, Environmental 
    Community Involvement.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \4\ See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        (iv) The National Guard Bureau, Office of Public Affairs (NGB-PA), 
    will assume the responsibilities of SAF/PA for the EIAP involving the 
    National Guard Bureau, Air Directorate.
        (b) Headquarters U.S. Air Force (HQ USAF). The Civil Engineer (HQ 
    USAF/ILE) is responsible for execution of the EIAP program. The 
    National Guard Bureau Air Directorate (NGB-CF) oversees the EIAP for 
    Air National Guard actions.
        (c) MAJCOMs, the Air National Guard, Field Operating Agencies 
    (FOAs), and Single Manager Programs. These organizations establish 
    procedures that comply with this part wherever they are the host unit 
    for preparing and using required environmental documentation in making 
    decisions about proposed actions and programs within their commands or 
    areas of responsibility.
        (1) Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE). The 
    AFCEE Environmental Conservation and Planning Directorate (AFCEE/EC) is 
    available to provide technical assistance and has the capability to 
    provide contract support to the proponent, EPF, and MAJCOMs in 
    developing EIAP documents.
        (2) Air Force Regional Environmental Offices (REOs). REOs review 
    non-Air Force environmental documents that may have an impact on the 
    Air Force. Requests for review of such documents should be directed to 
    the proper REO (Atlanta, Dallas, or San Francisco) along with any 
    relevant comments. The REO:
        (i) Notifies the proponent, after receipt, that the REO is the 
    single point of contact for the Air Force review of the document.
        (ii) Requests comments from potentially affected installations, 
    MAJCOMs, the ANG, and HQ USAF, as appropriate.
        (iii) Consolidates comments into the Air Force official response 
    and submits the final response to the proponent.
        (iv) Provides to HQ USAF/ILEVP and the appropriate MAJCOMs and 
    installations a copy of the final response and a complete set of all 
    review comments.
        (3) Single Manager Acquisition Programs (system-related NEPA). The 
    proponent Single Manager (i.e., System Program Director, Materiel Group 
    Managers, and Product Group Managers) for all programs, regardless of 
    acquisition category, shall comply with DoD Regulation 5000.2-R. SAF/
    AQR, as the Air Force Acquisition Executive Office, is the final 
    approval authority for all system-related NEPA documents. SAF/AQR is 
    responsible for accomplishing appropriate Headquarters EPC/ESOHC 
    review. The Single Manager will obtain appropriate Product Center EPC 
    approval prior to forwarding necessary EIAP documents (i.e., Notices of 
    Intent (NOIs) and preliminary draft and final EAs and EISs) to SAF/AQR. 
    The Single Manager will allow for concurrent review of EIAP documents 
    by HQ AFMC/CEV and the Operational Command (HQ ACC, HQ AMC, HQ AFSPC, 
    etc.) The Single Manager is responsible for budgeting and funding EIAP 
    efforts, including EIAP for research, development, testing, and 
    evaluation activities.
        (4) Key Air Force environmental participants. The EIAP must be 
    approached as an integrated team effort including key participants 
    within the Air Force and also involving outside federal agencies, 
    state, Tribal, and local governments, interested outside parties, 
    citizens groups, and the general public. Key Air Force participants may 
    include the following functional areas, as well as others:
    
    Proponent
    Civil Engineers/Environmental Planning Function
    Staff Judge Advocate
    Public Affairs
    Medical Service (Bioenvironmental Engineer)
    Safety Office
    Range and Airspace Managers
    Bases and Units
    Plans and Programs
    Logistics
    Personnel
    Legislative Liaison
    
        (d) Proponent. Each office, unit, single manager, or activity at 
    any level that initiates Air Force actions is responsible for:
        (1) Complying with the EIAP and shall ensure integration of the 
    EIAP during the initial planning stages of proposed actions so that 
    planning and decisions reflect environmental values, delays are avoided 
    later in the process, and potential conflicts are precluded.
        (2) Notifying the EPF of a pending action and completing Section I 
    of AF Form 813, Request for Environmental
    
    [[Page 38131]]
    
    Impact Analysis. Prepare the Description of Proposed Action and 
    Alternatives (DOPAA) through an interdisciplinary team approach 
    including the EPF and other key Air Force participants.
        (3) Identifying key decision points and coordinating with the EPF 
    on EIAP phasing to ensure that environmental documents are available to 
    the decision-maker before the final decision is made and ensuring that, 
    until the EIAP is complete, resources are not committed prejudicing the 
    selection of alternatives nor actions taken having an adverse 
    environmental impact or limiting the choice of reasonable alternatives.
        (4) Determining, with the EPF, as early as possible whether to 
    prepare an EIS. The proponent and the EPF will conduct an early 
    internal scoping process as part of the EIAP process. The internal 
    scoping process should involve key Air Force environmental participants 
    (see Sec. 989.3(c)(4)) and other Air Force offices as needed and 
    conclude with preparation of a DOPAA. For complex or detailed EAs or 
    EISs, an outside facilitator trained in EIAP may be used to focus and 
    guide the discussion. Department of the Air Force personnel, rather 
    than contractors, should generally be used to prepare the DOPAA.
        (5) Presenting the DOPAA to the EPC for review and comment.
        (6) Coordinating with the EPF, Public Affairs, and Staff Judge 
    Advocate prior to organizing public or interagency meetings which deal 
    with EIAP elements of a proposed action and involving persons or 
    agencies outside the Air Force.
        (7) Subsequent to the decision to prepare an EIS, assisting the EPF 
    and Public Affairs Office in preparing a draft NOI to prepare an EIS. 
    All NOIs must be forwarded through the MAJCOM EPF to HQ USAF/ILEV for 
    review and publication in the Federal Register. Publication in the 
    Federal Register is accomplished in accordance with AFI 37-120, Federal 
    Register.\5\ (See Sec. 989.17.)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \5\ See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        (8) Ensuring that proposed actions are implemented as described in 
    the final EIAP decision documents.
        (e) Environmental Planning Function (EPF). At every level of 
    command, the EPF is one of the key Air Force participants responsible 
    for the EIAP. The EPF can be the environmental flight within a civil 
    engineer squadron, a separate environmental management office at an 
    installation, the CEV at MAJCOMs, or an equivalent environmental 
    function located with a program office. The EPF:
        (1) Supports the EIAP by bringing key participants in at the 
    beginning of a proposed action and involving them throughout the EIAP. 
    Key participants play an important role in defining and focusing key 
    issues at the initial stage.
        (2) At the request of the proponent, prepares environmental 
    documents using an interdisciplinary approach, or obtains technical 
    assistance through Air Force channels or contract support. Assists the 
    proponent in obtaining review of environmental documents.
        (3) Assists the proponent in preparing a DOPAA and actively 
    supports the proponent during all phases of the EIAP.
        (4) Evaluates proposed actions and completes Sections II and III of 
    AF Form 813, subsequent to submission by the proponent and determines 
    whether a Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) applies. The responsible EPF 
    member signs the AF Form 813 certification.
        (5) Identifies and documents, with technical advice from the 
    Bioenvironmental Engineer and other staff members, environmental 
    quality standards that relate to the action under evaluation.
        (6) Supports the proponent in preparing environmental documents, or 
    obtains technical assistance through Air Force channels or contract 
    support and adopts the documents as official Air Force papers when 
    completed and approved.
        (7) Ensures the EIAP is conducted on base-level and MAJCOM-level 
    plans, including contingency plans for the training, movement, and 
    operations of Air Force personnel and equipment.
        (8) Prepares the NOI to prepare an EIS with assistance from the 
    proponent and the Public Affairs Office.
        (9) Prepares applicable portions of the Certificate of Compliance 
    for each military construction project according to AFI 32-1021, 
    Planning and Programming of Facility Construction Projects.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \6\ See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        (10) Submits one hard copy and one electronic copy of the final EA/
    Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and EIS/Record of Decision 
    (ROD) to the Defense Technical Information Center.
        (f) Environmental Protection Committee (EPC). The EPC helps 
    commanders assess, review, and approve EIAP documents in accordance 
    with AFI 32-7005, Environmental Protection Committees.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \7\ See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        (g) Staff Judge Advocate (SJA). The Staff Judge Advocate:
        (1) Advises the proponent, EPF, and EPC on CATEX determinations and 
    the legal sufficiency of environmental documents.
        (2) Advises the EPF during the scoping process of issues that 
    should be addressed in EISs and on procedures for the conduct of public 
    hearings.
        (3) Coordinates the appointment of the independent hearing officer 
    with AFLSA/JAJT and provides support for the hearing officer in cases 
    of public hearings on the draft EIS. The proponent pays administrative 
    and Temporary Duty (TDY) costs. The hearing officer presides at 
    hearings and makes final decisions regarding hearing procedures.
        (4) Promptly refers all matters causing or likely to cause 
    substantial public controversy or litigation through channels to AFLSA/
    JACE (or NGB-JA).
        (h) Public Affairs Officer. This officer:
        (1) Advises the EPF, the EPC, and the proponent on public affairs 
    activities on proposed actions and reviews environmental documents for 
    public involvement issues.
        (2) Advises the EPF of issues and competing interests that should 
    be addressed in the EIS or EA.
        (3) Assists in preparation of and attends public meetings or media 
    sessions on environmental issues.
        (4) Prepares, coordinates, and distributes news releases and other 
    public information materials related to the proposal and associated 
    EIAP documents.
        (5) Notifies the media (television, radio, newspaper) and purchases 
    advertisements when newspapers will not run notices free of charge. The 
    EPF will fund the required advertisements.
        (6) Determines and ensures Security Review requirements are met for 
    all information proposed for public release.
        (7) For more comprehensive instructions about public affairs 
    activities in environmental matters, see AFI 35-202.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \8\ See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        (i) Medical Service. The Medical Service, represented by the 
    Bioenvironmental Engineer, provides technical assistance to EPFs in the 
    areas of environmental health standards, environmental effects, and 
    environmental monitoring capabilities. The Air Force Armstrong 
    Laboratory, Occupational and Environmental Health Directorate, provides 
    additional technical support.
        (j) Safety Office. The Safety Office provides technical review and 
    assistance to EPFs to ensure consideration of safety standards and 
    requirements.
    
    [[Page 38132]]
    
    Sec. 989.4  Initial considerations.
    
        Air Force personnel will:
        (a) Consider and document environmental effects of proposed Air 
    Force actions through AF Forms 813, EAs, FONSIs, EISs, RODs, and 
    documents prepared according to E.O. 12114.
        (b) Evaluate proposed actions for possible CATEX from environmental 
    impact analysis (appendix B).
        (c) Make environmental documents, comments, and responses, 
    including those of other federal agencies, state, Tribal, and local 
    governments, and the public, part of the record available for review 
    and use at all levels of decisionmaking.
        (d) Review the specific alternatives analyzed in the EIAP when 
    evaluating the proposal prior to decisionmaking.
        (e) Ensure that alternatives to be considered by the decisionmaker 
    are both reasonable and within the range of alternatives analyzed in 
    the environmental documents.
        (f) Pursue the objective of furthering foreign policy and national 
    security interests while at the same time considering important 
    environmental factors.
        (g) Consider the environmental effects of actions that affect the 
    global commons.
        (h) Determine whether any foreign government should be informed of 
    the availability of environmental documents. Formal arrangements with 
    foreign governments concerning environmental matters and communications 
    with foreign governments concerning environmental agreements will be 
    coordinated with the Department of State by the Deputy Assistant 
    Secretary of the Air Force for Environment, Safety, and Occupational 
    Health (SAF/MIQ) through the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 
    (Environmental Security). This coordination requirement does not apply 
    to informal working-level communications and arrangements.
    
    
    Sec. 989.5  Organizational relationships.
    
        (a) The host EPF manages the EIAP using an interdisciplinary team 
    approach. This is especially important for tenant-proposed actions, 
    because the host command is responsible for the EIAP for actions 
    related to the host command's installations.
        (b) The host command prepares environmental documents internally or 
    directs the host base to prepare the environmental documents. 
    Environmental document preparation may be by contract (requiring the 
    tenant to fund the EIAP), by the tenant unit, or by the host. 
    Regardless of the preparation method, the host command will ensure the 
    required environmental analysis is accomplished before a decision is 
    made on the proposal and an action is undertaken. Support agreements 
    should provide specific procedures to ensure host oversight of tenant 
    compliance, tenant funding or reimbursement of host EIAP costs, and 
    tenant compliance with the EIAP regardless of the tenant not being an 
    Air Force organization.
        (c) For aircraft beddown and unit realignment actions, program 
    elements are identified in the Program Objective Memorandum. Subsequent 
    Program Change Requests must include AF Form 813.
        (d) To ensure timely initiation of the EIAP, SAF/AQ forwards 
    information copies of all Mission Need Statements and System 
    Operational Requirements Documents to SAF/MIQ, HQ USAF/ILEV (or ANGRC/
    CEV), the Air Force Medical Operations Agency, Aerospace Medicine 
    Office (AFMOA/SG), and the affected MAJCOM EPFs.
        (e) The MAJCOM of the scheduling unit managing affected airspace is 
    responsible for preparing and approving environmental analyses.
    
    
    Sec. 989.6  Budgeting and funding.
    
        Contract EIAP efforts are proponent MAJCOM responsibilities. Each 
    year, the EPF programs for anticipated out-year EIAP workloads based on 
    inputs from command proponents. If proponent offices exceed the budget 
    in a given year or identify unforeseen requirements, the proponent 
    offices must provide the remaining funding.
    
    
    Sec. 989.7  Requests from Non-Air Force agencies or entities.
    
        (a) Non-Air Force agencies or entities may request the Air Force to 
    undertake an action, such as issuing a permit or outleasing Air Force 
    property, that may primarily benefit the requester or an agency other 
    than the Air Force. The EPF and other Air Force staff elements must 
    identify such requests and coordinate with the proponent of the non-Air 
    Force proposal, as well as with concerned state, Tribal, and local 
    governments.
        (b) Air Force decisions on such proposals must take into 
    consideration the potential environmental impacts of the applicant's 
    proposed activity (as described in an Air Force environmental 
    document), insofar as the proposed action involves Air Force property 
    or programs, or requires Air Force approval.
        (c) The Air Force may require the requester to prepare, at the 
    requester's expense, an analysis of environmental impacts (40 CFR 
    1506.5), or the requester may be required to pay for an EA or EIS to be 
    prepared by a contractor selected and supervised by the Air Force. The 
    EPF may permit requesters to submit draft EAs for their proposed 
    actions, except for actions described in Sec. 989.16(a) and (b), or for 
    actions the EPF has reason to believe will ultimately require an EIS. 
    For EISs, the EPF has the responsibility to prepare the environmental 
    document, although responsibility for funding remains with the 
    requester. The fact that the requester has prepared environmental 
    documents at its own expense does not commit the Air Force to allow or 
    undertake the proposed action or its alternatives. The requester is not 
    entitled to any preference over other potential parties with whom the 
    Air Force might contract or make similar arrangements.
        (d) In no event is the requester who prepares or funds an 
    environmental analysis entitled to reimbursement from the Air Force. 
    When requesters prepare environmental documents outside the Air Force, 
    the Air Force must independently evaluate and approve the scope and 
    content of the environmental analyses before using the analyses to 
    fulfill EIAP requirements. Any outside environmental analysis must 
    evaluate reasonable alternatives as defined in Sec. 989.8.
    
    
    Sec. 989.8  Analysis of alternatives.
    
        (a) The Air Force must analyze reasonable alternatives to the 
    proposed action and the ``no action'' alternative in all EAs and EISs, 
    as fully as the proposed action alternative.
        (b) ``Reasonable'' alternatives are those that meet the underlying 
    purpose and need for the proposed action and that would cause a 
    reasonable person to inquire further before choosing a particular 
    course of action. Reasonable alternatives are not limited to those 
    directly within the power of the Air Force to implement. They may 
    involve another government agency or military service to assist in the 
    project or even to become the lead agency. The Air Force must also 
    consider reasonable alternatives raised during the scoping process (see 
    Sec. 989.18) or suggested by others, as well as combinations of 
    alternatives. The Air Force need not analyze highly speculative 
    alternatives, such as those requiring a major, unlikely change in law 
    or governmental policy. If the Air Force identifies a large number of 
    reasonable alternatives, it may limit alternatives selected for 
    detailed environmental analysis to a reasonable range or to a 
    reasonable number of examples covering the full spectrum of 
    alternatives.
    
    [[Page 38133]]
    
        (c) The Air Force may expressly eliminate alternatives from 
    detailed analysis, based on reasonable selection standards (for 
    example, operational, technical, or environmental standards suitable to 
    a particular project). In consultation with the EPF, the appropriate 
    Air Force organization may develop written selection standards to 
    firmly establish what is a ``reasonable'' alternative for a particular 
    project, but they must not so narrowly define these standards that they 
    unnecessarily limit consideration to the proposal initially favored by 
    proponents. This discussion of reasonable alternatives applies equally 
    to EAs and EISs.
        (d) Except in those rare instances where excused by law, the Air 
    Force must always consider and assess the environmental impacts of the 
    ``no action'' alternative. ``No action'' may mean either that current 
    management practice will not change or that the proposed action will 
    not take place. If no action would result in other predictable actions, 
    those actions should be discussed within the no action alternative 
    section. The discussion of the no action alternative and the other 
    alternatives should be comparable in detail to that of the proposed 
    action.
    
    
    Sec. 989.9  Cooperation and adoption.
    
        (a) Lead and cooperating agency (40 CFR 1501.5 and 1501.6). When 
    the Air Force is a cooperating agency in the preparation of an EIS, the 
    Air Force reviews and approves principal environmental documents within 
    the EIAP as if they were prepared by the Air Force. The Air Force 
    executes a ROD for its program decisions that are based on an EIS for 
    which the Air Force is a cooperating agency. The Air Force may also be 
    a lead or cooperating agency on an EA using similar procedures, but the 
    MAJCOM EPC retains approval authority unless otherwise directed by HQ 
    USAF. Before invoking provisions of 40 CFR 1501.5(e), the lowest 
    authority level possible resolves disputes concerning which agency is 
    the lead agency.
        (b) Adoption of EA or EIS. The Air Force, even though not a 
    cooperating agency, may adopt an EA or EIS prepared by another entity 
    where the proposed action is substantially the same as the action 
    described in the EA or EIS. In this case, the EA or EIS must be 
    recirculated as a final EA or EIS but the Air Force must independently 
    review the EA or EIS and determine that it is current and that it 
    satisfies the requirements of this part. The Air Force then prepares 
    its own FONSI or ROD, as the case may be. In the situation where the 
    proposed action is not substantially the same as that described in the 
    EA or the EIS, the Air Force may adopt the EA or EIS, or a portion 
    thereof, by circulating the EA or EIS as a draft and then preparing the 
    final EA or EIS.
    
    
    Sec. 989.10  Tiering.
    
        The Air Force should use tiered (40 CFR 1502.20) environmental 
    documents, and environmental documents prepared by other agencies, to 
    eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and to focus on the 
    issues relating to specific actions. If the Air Force adopts another 
    Federal agency's environmental document, subsequent Air Force 
    environmental documents may also be tiered.
    
    
    Sec. 989.11  Combining EIAP with other documentation.
    
        (a) The EPF combines environmental analysis with other related 
    documentation when practicable (40 CFR 1506.4) following the procedures 
    prescribed by the CEQ regulations and this part.
        (b) The EPF must integrate comprehensive planning (AFI 32-7062, Air 
    Force Comprehensive Planning 9) with the requirements of the 
    EIAP. Prior to making a decision to proceed, the EPF must analyze the 
    environmental impacts that could result from implementation of a 
    proposal identified in the comprehensive plan.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \9\ See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    Sec. 989.12  AF Form 813, Request for Environmental Impact Analysis.
    
        The Air Force uses AF Form 813 to document the need for 
    environmental analysis or for certain CATEX determinations for proposed 
    actions. The form helps narrow and focus the issues to potential 
    environmental impacts. AF Form 813 must be retained with the EA or EIS 
    to record the focusing of environmental issues. The rationale for not 
    addressing environmental issues must also be recorded in the EA or EIS.
    
    
    Sec. 989.13  Categorical exclusion.
    
        (a) CATEXs define those categories of actions that do not 
    individually or cumulatively have potential for significant effect on 
    the environment and do not, therefore, require further environmental 
    analysis in an EA or an EIS. The list of Air Force-approved CATEXs is 
    in Appendix B. Supplements to this part may not add CATEXs or expand 
    the scope of the CATEXs in Appendix B.
        (b) Characteristics of categories of actions that usually do not 
    require either an EIS or an EA (in the absence of extraordinary 
    circumstances) include:
        (1) Minimal adverse effect on environmental quality.
        (2) No significant change to existing environmental conditions.
        (3) No significant cumulative environmental impact.
        (4) Socioeconomic effects only.
        (5) Similarity to actions previously assessed and found to have no 
    significant environmental impacts.
        (c) CATEXs apply to actions in the United States and abroad. 
    General exemptions specific to actions abroad are in 32 CFR part 187. 
    The EPF or other decision-maker forwards requests for additional 
    exemption determinations for actions abroad to HQ USAF/ILEV with a 
    justification letter.
        (d) Normally, any decision-making level may determine the 
    applicability of a CATEX and need not formally record the determination 
    on AF Form 813 or elsewhere, except as noted in the CATEX list.
        (e) Application of a CATEX to an action does not eliminate the need 
    to meet air conformity requirements (see Sec. 989.30).
    
    
    Sec. 989.14  Environmental assessment.
    
        (a) When a proposed action is one not usually requiring an EIS but 
    is not categorically excluded, the EPF supports the proponent in 
    preparing an EA (40 CFR 1508.9). Every EA must lead to either a FONSI, 
    a decision to prepare an EIS, or no action on the proposal.
        (b) Whenever a proposed action usually requires an EIS, the EPF 
    responsible for the EIAP may prepare an EA to definitively determine if 
    an EIS is required based on the analysis of environmental impacts. 
    Alternatively, the EPF may choose to bypass the EA and proceed with 
    preparation of an EIS.
        (c) An EA is a written analysis that:
        (1) Provides analysis sufficient to determine whether to prepare an 
    EIS or a FONSI.
        (2) Aids the Air Force in complying with the NEPA when no EIS is 
    required.
        (d) The length of an EA should be as short and concise as possible, 
    while matching the magnitude of the proposal. An EA briefly discusses 
    the need for the proposed action, reasonable alternatives to the 
    proposed action, the affected environment, the environmental impacts of 
    the proposed action and alternatives (including the ``no action'' 
    alternative), and a listing of agencies and persons consulted during 
    preparation. The EA should not contain long descriptions or lengthy, 
    detailed data. Rather, incorporate by reference background data to 
    support the concise discussion of the proposal and relevant issues.
    
    [[Page 38134]]
    
        (e) The format for the EA may be the same as the EIS. The 
    alternatives section of an EA and an EIS are similar and should follow 
    the alternatives analysis guidance outlined in Sec. 989.8.
        (f) The EPF should design the EA to facilitate rapidly transforming 
    the document into an EIS if the environmental analysis reveals a 
    significant impact.
        (g) EAs for actions where the Air Force has wetlands or floodplains 
    compliance responsibilities (E.O. 11988 and E.O. 11990) require SAF/MIQ 
    approval. As a finding contained in the draft FONSI, a Finding of No 
    Practicable Alternative (FONPA) must be submitted (five hard copies and 
    an electronic version) through the MAJCOM EPF to HQ USAF/ILEVP when the 
    alternative selected is located in wetlands or floodplains, and must 
    discuss why no other practicable alternative exists to avoid impacts. 
    See AFI 32-7064, Integrated Natural Resources Management.
        (h) EAs and accompanying FONSIs that require the Air Force to make 
    Clean Air Act General Conformity Determinations shall be submitted 
    (five hard copies and an electronic version) through the MAJCOM EPF to 
    HQ USAF/ILEVP for SAF/MIQ approval. SAF/MIQ signs all General 
    Conformity Determinations and will also sign the companion FONSIs, when 
    requested by the MAJCOM (see Sec. 989.30).
        (i) In cases potentially involving a high degree of controversy or 
    Air Force-wide concern, the MAJCOM, after consultation with HQ USAF/
    ILEVP, may request HQ USAF ESOHC review and approval of an EA, or HQ 
    USAF may direct the MAJCOM to forward an EA (five hard copies and an 
    electronic version) for HQ USAF ESOHC review and approval.
        (j) As a minimum, the following EAs require MAJCOM approval because 
    they involve topics of special importance or interest. Unless directed 
    otherwise by HQ USAF/ILEVP, the installation EPF must forward the 
    following types of EAs to the MAJCOM EPF, along with an unsigned draft 
    FONSI: (MAJCOMs can require other EAs to receive MAJCOM approval in 
    addition to those types specified here.)
        (1) All EAs on non-Air Force proposals that require an Air Force 
    decision, such as use of Air Force property for highways, space ports, 
    and joint-use proposals.
        (2) EAs where mitigation to insignificance is accomplished in lieu 
    of initiating an EIS (Sec. 989.22(c)).
        (k) A few examples of actions that normally require preparation of 
    an EA (except as indicated in the CATEX list) include:
        (1) Public land withdrawals of less than 5,000 acres.
        (2) Minor mission realignments and aircraft beddowns.
        (3) New building construction on base within developed areas.
        (4) Minor modifications to Military Operating Areas (MOAs), air-to-
    ground weapons ranges, and military training routes.
        (l) The Air Force will involve other federal agencies, state, 
    Tribal, and local governments, and the public in the preparation of EAs 
    (40 CFR 1501.4(b) and 1506.6). The extent of involvement usually 
    coincides with the magnitude and complexity of the proposed action and 
    its potential environmental effect on the area. For proposed actions 
    described in Sec. 989.15(e)(2), use either the scoping process 
    described in Sec. 989.18 or the public notice process in Sec. 989.24.
    
    
    Sec. 989.15  Finding of no significant impact.
    
        (a) The FONSI (40 CFR 1508.13) briefly describes why an action 
    would not have a significant effect on the environment and thus will 
    not be the subject of an EIS. The FONSI must summarize the EA or, 
    preferably, have it attached and incorporated by reference, and must 
    note any other environmental documents related to the action.
        (b) If the EA is not incorporated by reference, the FONSI must 
    include:
        (1) Name of the action.
        (2) Brief description of the action (including alternatives 
    considered and the chosen alternative).
        (3) Brief discussion of anticipated environmental effects.
        (4) Conclusions leading to the FONSI.
        (5) All mitigation actions that will be adopted with implementation 
    of the proposal (see Sec. 989.22).
        (c) Keep FONSIs as brief as possible. Only rarely should FONSIs 
    exceed two typewritten pages. Stand-alone FONSIs without an attached EA 
    may be longer.
        (d) For actions of regional or local interest, disseminate the 
    FONSI according to Sec. 989.24. The MAJCOM and NGB are responsible for 
    release of FONSIs to regional offices of Federal agencies, the state 
    single point of contact (SPOC), and state agencies concurrent with 
    local release by the installations.
        (e) The EPF must make the EA and unsigned FONSI available to the 
    affected public and provide the EA and unsigned FONSI to organizations 
    and individuals requesting them and to whomever the proponent or the 
    EPF has reason to believe is interested in the action, unless 
    disclosure is precluded for security classification reasons. Draft EAs 
    and unsigned draft FONSIs will be clearly identified as drafts and 
    distributed via cover letter which will explain their purpose and need. 
    The EPF provides a copy of the documents without cost to organizations 
    and individuals requesting them. The FONSI transmittal date (date of 
    letter of transmittal) to the state SPOC or other equivalent agency is 
    the official notification date.
        (1) Before the FONSI is signed and the action is implemented, the 
    EPF should allow sufficient time to receive comments from the public. 
    The time period will reflect the magnitude of the proposed action and 
    its potential for controversy. The greater the magnitude of the 
    proposed action or its potential for controversy, the longer the time 
    that must be allowed for public review. Mandatory review periods for 
    certain defined actions are contained in Sec. 989.15(e)(2). These are 
    not all inclusive but merely specific examples. In every case where an 
    EA and FONSI are prepared, the proponent and EPF must determine how 
    much time will be allowed for public review. In all cases, other than 
    classified actions, a public review period should be the norm unless 
    clearly unnecessary due to the lack of potential controversy.
        (2) In the following circumstances, the EA and unsigned FONSI are 
    made available for public review for at least 30 days before FONSI 
    approval and implementing the action (40 CFR 1501.4(e)(2)):
        (i) When the proposed action is, or is closely similar to, one that 
    usually requires preparation of an EIS (see Sec. 989.16).
        (ii) If it is an unusual case, a new kind of action, or a 
    precedent-setting case in terms of its potential environmental impacts.
        (iii) If the proposed action would be located in a floodplain or 
    wetland.
        (iv) If the action is mitigated to insignificance in the FONSI, in 
    lieu of an EIS (Sec. 989.22(c)).
        (v) If the proposed action is a change to airspace use or 
    designation.
        (vi) If the proposed action would have a disproportionately high 
    and adverse environmental effect on minority populations and low-income 
    populations.
        (f) As a general rule, the same organizational level that prepares 
    the EA also reviews and recommends the FONSI for approval by the EPC. 
    MAJCOMs may decide the level of EA approval and FONSI signature, except 
    as provided in Sec. 989.14(g), (h), (i), and (j).
    
    [[Page 38135]]
    
    Sec. 989.16  Environmental impact statement.
    
        (a) Certain classes of environmental impacts normally require 
    preparation of an EIS (40 CFR 1501.4). These include, but are not 
    limited to:
        (1) Potential for significant degradation of the environment.
        (2) Potential for significant threat or hazard to public health or 
    safety.
        (3) Substantial environmental controversy concerning the 
    significance or nature of the environmental impact of a proposed 
    action.
        (b) Certain other actions normally, but not always, require an EIS. 
    These include, but are not limited to:
        (1) Public land withdrawals of over 5,000 acres (Engle Act, 43 
    U.S.C. 155 through 158).
        (2) Establishment of new air-to-ground weapons ranges.
        (3) Site selection of new airfields.
        (4) Site selection of major installations.
        (5) Development of major new weapons systems (at decision points 
    that involve demonstration, validation, production, deployment, and 
    area or site selection for deployment).
        (6) Establishing or expanding supersonic training areas over land 
    below 30,000 feet MSL (mean sea level).
        (7) Disposal and reuse of closing installations.
    
    
    Sec. 989.17  Notice of intent.
    
        The EPF must furnish, through the MAJCOM, to HQ USAF/ILEV the NOI 
    (40 CFR 1508.22) describing the proposed action for congressional 
    notification and publication in the Federal Register. The EPF, through 
    the host base public affairs office, will also provide the approved NOI 
    to newspapers and other media in the area potentially affected by the 
    proposed action. The EPF must provide copies of the notice to the SPOC 
    and must also distribute it to requesting agencies, organizations, and 
    individuals. Along with the draft NOI, the EPF must also forward the 
    completed DOPAA, through the MAJCOM, to HQ USAF for information.
    
    
    Sec. 989.18  Scoping.
    
        (a) After publication of the NOI for an EIS, the EPF must initiate 
    the public scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7) to determine the scope of 
    issues to be addressed and to help identify significant environmental 
    issues to be analyzed in depth. Methods of scoping range from 
    soliciting written comments to conducting public scoping meetings (see 
    40 CFR 1501.7 and 1506.6(e)). The scoping process is an iterative, pro-
    active process of communicating with individual citizens, neighborhood, 
    community, and local leaders, public interest groups, congressional 
    delegations, state, Tribal, and local governments, and federal 
    agencies. The scoping process must start prior to official public 
    scoping meetings and continue through to preparation of the draft EIS. 
    The purpose of this process is to de-emphasize insignificant issues and 
    focus the scope of the environmental analysis on significant issues (40 
    CFR 1500.4(g)). Additionally, scoping allows early and more meaningful 
    participation by the public. The result of scoping is that the 
    proponent and EPF determine the range of actions, alternatives, and 
    impacts to be considered in the EIS (40 CFR 1508.25). The EPF must send 
    scripts for scoping meetings to AF/ILEV (or ANGRC/CEV) no later than 30 
    days before the first scoping meeting. Scoping meeting plans are 
    similar in content to public hearing plans (see Appendix C). Public 
    scoping meetings should generally be held at locations not on the 
    installation.
        (b) Where it is anticipated the proposed action and its 
    alternatives will have disproportionately high and adverse human health 
    or environmental effects on minority populations or low-income 
    populations, special efforts shall be made to reach these populations. 
    This might include special informational meetings or notices in 
    minority and low-income areas concerning the regular scoping process.
    
    
    Sec. 989.19  Draft EIS.
    
        (a) Preliminary draft. The EPF supports the proponent in 
    preparation of a preliminary draft EIS (PDEIS) (40 CFR 1502.9) based on 
    the scope of issues decided on during the scoping process. The format 
    of the EIS must be in accordance with the format recommended in the CEQ 
    regulations (40 CFR 1502.10 and 1502.11). The CEQ regulations indicate 
    that EISs normally contain fewer than 150 pages (300 pages for 
    proposals of unusual complexity). The EPF provides a sufficient number 
    of copies of the PDEIS to HQ USAF/ILEV for HQ USAF ESOHC security and 
    policy review in each member's area of responsibility and to AFCEE/EC 
    for technical review.
        (b) Review of draft EIS. After the HQ USAF ESOHC review, the EPF 
    assists the appropriate Air Force organization in making any necessary 
    revisions to the PDEIS and forwards it to HQ USAF/ILEV as a draft EIS 
    to ensure completion of all security and policy reviews and to certify 
    releasability. Once the draft EIS is approved, HQ USAF/ILEV notifies 
    the EPF to print sufficient copies of the draft EIS for distribution to 
    congressional delegations and interested agencies at least 7 calendar 
    days prior to publication of the Notice of Availability (NOA) in the 
    Federal Register. After congressional distribution, the EPF sends the 
    draft EIS to all others on the distribution list. HQ USAF/ILEV then 
    files the document with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
    (USEPA) and provides a copy to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 
    for Environmental Security.
        (c) Public review of draft EIS (40 CFR 1502.19 and 1506.6): (1) The 
    public comment period for the draft EIS is at least 45 days starting 
    from the publication date of the NOA of the draft EIS in the Federal 
    Register. USEPA publishes in the Federal Register NOAs of EISs filed 
    during the preceding week. This public comment period may be extended 
    by the EPF. If the draft EIS is unusually long, the EPF may distribute 
    a summary to the public with an attached list of locations (such as 
    public libraries) where the entire draft EIS may be reviewed. The EPF 
    must distribute the full draft EIS to certain entities, for example, 
    agencies with jurisdiction by law or agencies with special expertise in 
    evaluating the environmental impacts, and anyone else requesting the 
    entire draft EIS (40 CFR 1502.19 and 1506.6).
        (2) The EPF sponsors public hearings on the draft EIS according to 
    the procedures in Attachment 3. Hearings take place no sooner than 15 
    days after the Federal Register publication of the NOA and at least 15 
    days before the end of the comment period. Scheduling hearings toward 
    the end of the comment period is encouraged to allow the public to 
    obtain and more thoroughly review the draft EIS. The EPF must provide 
    hearing scripts to HQ USAF/ILEV (or ANGRC/CEV) no later than 30 days 
    prior to the first public hearing. Public hearings should generally be 
    held at off-base locations. Submit requests to deviate from procedures 
    in Attachment 3 to HQ USAF/ILEVP for SAF/MIQ approval.
        (3) Where analyses indicate that a proposed action will potentially 
    have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
    effects on minority populations or low-income populations, the EPF 
    should make special efforts to ensure that these potentially impacted 
    populations are brought into the review process.
        (d) Response to comments (40 CFR 1503.4). The EPF must incorporate 
    in the Final EIS its responses to comments on the Draft EIS by 
    modifying the text and referring in the appendix to where the comment 
    is addressed or providing a written explanation in the comments 
    section, or both. The EPF may group comments of a similar nature 
    together to
    
    [[Page 38136]]
    
    allow a common response and may also respond to individuals separately.
        (e) Seeking additional comments. The EPF may, at any time during 
    the EIS process, seek additional public comments, such as when there 
    has been a significant change in circumstances, development of 
    significant new information of a relevant nature, or where there is 
    substantial environmental controversy concerning the proposed action. 
    Significant new information leading to public controversy regarding the 
    scope after the scoping process is such a changed circumstance. An 
    additional public comment period may also be necessary after the 
    publication of the draft EIS due to public controversy or changes made 
    as the result of previous public comments. Such periods when additional 
    public comments are sought shall last for at least 30 days.
    
    
    Sec. 989.20  Final EIS.
    
        (a) If changes in the draft EIS are minor or limited to factual 
    corrections and responses to comments, the proponent and EPF may, with 
    the prior approval of HQ USAF/ILEV and SAF/MIQ, prepare a document 
    containing only comments on the Draft EIS, Air Force responses, and 
    errata sheets of changes staffed to the HQ USAF ESOHC for coordination. 
    However, the EPF must submit the Draft EIS and all of the above 
    documents, with a new cover sheet indicating that it is a final EIS (40 
    CFR 1503.4(c)), to HQ USAF/ILEV for filing with the EPA (40 CFR 
    1506.9). If more extensive modifications are required, the EPF must 
    prepare a preliminary final EIS incorporating these modifications for 
    coordination within the Air Force. Regardless of which procedure is 
    followed, the final EIS must be processed in the same way as the draft 
    EIS, including receipt of copies of the EIS by SAF/LLP, except that the 
    public need not be invited to comment during the 30-day post-filing 
    waiting period. The Final EIS should be furnished to every person, 
    organization, or agency that made substantive comments on the Draft EIS 
    or requested a copy. Although the EPF is not required to respond to 
    public comments received during this period, comments received must be 
    considered in determining final decisions such as identifying the 
    preferred alternative, appropriate mitigations, or if a supplemental 
    analysis is required.
        (b) The EPF processes all necessary supplements to EISs (40 CFR 
    1502.9) in the same way as the original Draft and Final EIS, except 
    that a new scoping process is not required.
        (c) If major steps to advance the proposal have not occurred within 
    5 years from the date of the Final EIS approval, reevaluation of the 
    documentation should be accomplished to ensure its continued validity.
    
    
    Sec. 989.21  Record of decision (ROD).
    
        (a) The proponent and the EPF prepare a draft ROD, formally staff 
    it through the MAJCOM EPC, to HQ USAF/ILEV for verification of 
    adequacy, and forwards it to either SAF/MIQ or SAF/AQR, as the case may 
    be, for approval and designation of the signator. A ROD (40 CFR 1505.2) 
    is a concise public document stating what an agency's decision is on a 
    specific action. The ROD may be integrated into any other document 
    required to implement the agency's decision. A decision on a course of 
    action may not be made until the later of the following dates:
        (1) 90 days after publication of the DEIS; or
        (2) 30 days after publication of the NOA of the Final EIS in the 
    Federal Register.
        (b) The Air Force must announce the ROD to the affected public as 
    specified in Sec. 989.23, except for classified portions. The ROD 
    should be concise and should explain the conclusion, the reason for the 
    selection, and the alternatives considered. The ROD must identify the 
    course of action, whether it is the proposed action or an alternative, 
    that is considered environmentally preferable regardless of whether it 
    is the alternative selected for implementation. The ROD should 
    summarize all the major factors the agency weighed in making its 
    decision, including essential considerations of national policy.
        (c) The ROD must state whether the selected alternative employs all 
    practicable means to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental impacts 
    and, if not, explain why.
    
    
    Sec. 989.22  Mitigation.
    
        (a) When preparing EIAP documents, indicate clearly whether 
    mitigation measures (40 CFR 1508.20) must be implemented for the 
    alternative selected. Discuss mitigation measures in terms of ``will'' 
    and ``would'' when such measures have already been incorporated into 
    the proposal. Use terms like ``may'' and ``could'' when proposing or 
    suggesting mitigation measures. Both the public and the Air Force 
    community need to know what commitments are being considered and 
    selected, and who will be responsible for implementing, funding, and 
    monitoring the mitigation measures.
        (b) The proponent funds and implements mitigation measures in the 
    mitigation plan that is approved by the decision-maker. Where possible 
    and appropriate because of amount, the proponent should include the 
    cost of mitigation as a line item in the budget for a proposed project. 
    The proponent must ensure compliance with mitigation requirements, 
    monitoring their effectiveness, and must keep the EPF informed of the 
    mitigation status. The EPF reports its status, through the MAJCOM, to 
    HQ USAF/ILEV when requested. Upon request, the EPF must also provide 
    the results of relevant mitigation monitoring to the public.
        (c) The proponent may ``mitigate to insignificance'' potentially 
    significant environmental impacts found during preparation of an EA, in 
    lieu of preparing an EIS. The FONSI for the EA must include these 
    mitigation measures. Such mitigations are legally binding and must be 
    carried out as the proponent implements the project. If, for any 
    reason, the project proponent later abandons or revises in 
    environmentally adverse ways the mitigation commitments made in the 
    FONSI, the proponent must prepare a supplemental EIAP document before 
    continuing the project. If potentially significant environmental 
    impacts would result from any project revisions, the proponent must 
    prepare an EIS.
        (d) For each FONSI or ROD containing mitigation measures, the 
    proponent prepares a plan specifically identifying each mitigation, 
    discussing how the proponent will execute the mitigations, identifying 
    who will fund and implement the mitigations, and stating when the 
    proponent will complete the mitigation. The mitigation plan will be 
    forwarded, through the MAJCOM EPF to HQ USAF/ILEV for review within 90 
    days from the date of signature of the FONSI or ROD.
    
    
    Sec. 989.23  Contractor prepared documents.
    
        All Air Force EIAP documents belong to and are the responsibility 
    of the Air Force. EIAP correspondence and documents distributed outside 
    of the Air Force should generally be signed out by Air Force personnel 
    and documents should reflect on the cover sheet they are an Air Force 
    document. Contractor preparation information should be contained within 
    the document's list of preparers.
    
    
    Sec. 989.24  Public notification.
    
        (a) Except as provided in Sec. 989.26, public notification is 
    required for various aspects of the EIAP.
        (b) Activities that require public notification include:
    
    
    [[Page 38137]]
    
    
    (1) An EA and FONSI.
    (2) An EIS NOI.
    (3) Public scoping meetings.
    (4) Availability of the draft EIS.
    (5) Public hearings on the draft EIS (which should be included in the 
    NOA for the draft EIS).
    (6) Availability of the final EIS.
    (7) The ROD for an EIS.
    
        (c) For actions of local concern, the list of possible notification 
    methods in 40 CFR 1506.6(b)(3) is only illustrative. The EPF may use 
    other equally effective means of notification as a substitute for any 
    of the methods listed. Because many Air Force actions are of limited 
    interest to persons or organizations outside the Air Force, the EPF may 
    limit local notification to the SPOC, local government representatives, 
    and local news media. For all actions covered under Sec. 989.15(e)(2), 
    and for all EIS notices, the public affairs office must purchase with 
    EPF funds an advertisement in a prominent section of the local 
    newspaper(s) of general circulation (not ``legal'' newspapers or 
    ``legal section'' of general newspapers).
        (d) For the purpose of EIAP, the EPF begins the time period of 
    local notification when it sends written notification to the state SPOC 
    or other equivalent agency (date of letter of notification).
    
    
    Sec. 989.25  Base closure and realignment.
    
        Base closure or realignment may entail special requirements for 
    environmental analysis. The permanent base closure and realignment law, 
    10 U.S.C. 2687, requires a report to the Congress when an installation 
    where at least 300 DoD civilian personnel are authorized to be employed 
    is closed, or when a realignment reduces such an installation by at 
    least 50 percent or 1,000 of such personnel, whichever is less. In 
    addition, other base closure laws may be in effect during particular 
    periods. Such nonpermanent closure laws frequently contain provisions 
    limiting the extent of environmental analysis required for actions 
    taken under them. Such provisions may also add requirements for studies 
    not necessarily required by NEPA.
    
    
    Sec. 989.26  Classified actions (40 CFR 1507.3(c)).
    
        (a) Classification of an action for national defense or foreign 
    policy purposes does not relieve the requirement of complying with 
    NEPA. In classified matters, the Air Force must prepare and make 
    available normal NEPA environmental analysis documents to aid in the 
    decision-making process; however, Air Force staff must prepare, 
    safeguard, and disseminate these documents according to established 
    procedures for protecting classified documents. If an EIAP document 
    must be classified, the Air Force may modify or eliminate associated 
    requirements for public notice (including publication in the Federal 
    Register) or public involvement in the EIAP. However, the Air Force 
    should obtain comments on classified proposed actions or classified 
    aspects of generally unclassified actions, from public agencies having 
    jurisdiction by law or special expertise, to the extent that such 
    review and comment is consistent with security requirements. Where 
    feasible, the EPF may need to help appropriate personnel from those 
    agencies obtain necessary security clearances to gain access to 
    documents so they can comment on scoping or review the documents.
        (b) Where the proposed action is classified and unavailable to the 
    public, the Air Force may keep the entire NEPA process classified and 
    protected under the applicable procedures for the classification level 
    pertinent to the particular information. At times (for example, during 
    weapons system development and base closures and realignments), certain 
    but not all aspects of NEPA documents may later be declassified. In 
    those cases, the EPF should organize the EIAP documents, to the extent 
    practicable, in a way that keeps the most sensitive classified 
    information (which is not expected to be released at any early date) in 
    a separate annex that can remain classified; the rest of the EIAP 
    documents, when declassified, will then be comprehensible as a unit and 
    suitable for release to the public. Thus, the documents will reflect, 
    as much as possible, the nature of the action and its environmental 
    impacts, as well as Air Force compliance with NEPA requirements.
        (c) Where the proposed action is not classified, but certain 
    aspects of it need to be protected by security classification, the EPF 
    should tailor the EIAP for a proposed action to permit as normal a 
    level of public involvement as possible, but also fully protect the 
    classified part of the action and environmental analysis. In some 
    instances, the EPF can do this by keeping the classified sections of 
    the EIAP documents in a separate, classified annex.
        (d) For Sec. 989.26(b) actions, an NOI or NOA will not be published 
    in the Federal Register until the proposed action is declassified. For 
    Sec. 989.26(c) actions, the Federal Register will run an unclassified 
    NOA which will advise the public that at some time in the future the 
    Air Force may or will publicly release a declassified document.
        (e) The EPF similarly protects classified aspects of FONSIs, RODs, 
    or other environmental documents that are part of the EIAP for a 
    proposed action, such as by preparing separate classified annexes to 
    unclassified documents, as necessary.
        (f) Whenever a proponent believes that EIAP documents should be 
    kept classified, the EPF must make a report of the matter to SAF/MIQ, 
    including proposed modifications of the normal EIAP to protect 
    classified information. The EPF may make such submissions at whatever 
    level of security classification is needed to provide a comprehensive 
    understanding of the issues. SAF/MIQ, with support from SAF/GC and 
    other staff elements as necessary, makes final decisions on EIAP 
    procedures for classified actions.
    
    
    Sec. 989.27  Occupational safety and health.
    
        Assess direct and indirect impacts of proposed actions on the 
    safety and health of Air Force employees and others at a work site. The 
    EIAP document does not need to specify compliance procedures. However, 
    the EIAP documents should discuss impacts that require a change in work 
    practices to achieve an adequate level of health and safety.
    
    
    Sec. 989.28  Airspace and range proposals.
    
        (a) EIAP Review. Airspace and range proposals require review by HQ 
    USAF/XOO prior to public announcement and preparation of the DOPAA. 
    Unless directed otherwise, the airspace proponent will forward the 
    DOPAA as an attachment to the proposal sent to HQ USAF/XOO.
        (b) Federal Aviation Administration. The DoD and the Federal 
    Aviation Administration (FAA) have entered into a Memorandum of 
    Understanding (MOU) that outlines various airspace responsibilities. 
    For purposes of compliance with NEPA, the DoD is the ``lead agency'' 
    for all proposals initiated by DoD, with the FAA acting as the 
    ``cooperating agency.'' Where airspace proposals initiated by the FAA 
    affect military use, the roles are reversed. The proponent's action 
    officers (civil engineering and local airspace management) must ensure 
    that the FAA is fully integrated into the airspace proposal and related 
    EIAP from the very beginning and that the action officers review the 
    FAA's responsibilities as a cooperating agency. The proponent's 
    airspace manager develops the preliminary airspace proposal per 
    appropriate FAA handbooks and the FAA-DoD MOU. The preliminary
    
    [[Page 38138]]
    
    airspace proposal is the basis for initial dialogue between DoD and the 
    FAA on the proposed action. A close working relationship between DoD 
    and the FAA, through the FAA regional Air Force representative, greatly 
    facilitates the airspace proposal process and helps resolve many NEPA 
    issues during the EIAP.
    
    
    Sec. 989.29  Force structure and unit move proposals.
    
        Unless directed otherwise, the MAJCOM plans and programs proponent 
    will forward a copy of all EAs for force structure and unit moves to HQ 
    USAF/ILXB for information only at the preliminary draft and preliminary 
    final stages.
    
    
    Sec. 989.30  Air quality.
    
        Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 
    7506(c), establishes a conformity requirement for Federal agencies 
    which has been implemented by regulation, 40 CFR 93, Subpart B. All 
    EIAP documents must address applicable conformity requirements and the 
    status of compliance. Conformity applicability analyses and 
    determinations are developed in parallel with EIAP documents, but are 
    separate and distinct requirements and should be documented separately. 
    To increase the utility of a conformity determination in performing the 
    EIAP, the conformity determination should be completed prior to the 
    completion of the EIAP so as to allow incorporation of the information 
    from the conformity determination into the EIAP. See AFI 32-7040, Air 
    Quality Compliance.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \10\ See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    Sec. 989.31  Pollution prevention.
    
        The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 13101(b), 
    established a national policy to prevent or reduce pollution at the 
    source, whenever feasible. Pollution prevention approaches should be 
    applied to all pollution-generating activities. The environmental 
    document should analyze potential pollution that may result from the 
    proposed action and alternatives and must discuss potential pollution 
    prevention measures when such measures are feasible for incorporation 
    into the proposal or alternatives. Where pollution cannot be prevented, 
    the environmental analysis and proposed mitigation measures should 
    include, wherever possible, recycling, energy recovery, treatment, and 
    environmentally safe disposal actions (see AFI 32-7080, Pollution 
    Prevention Program \11\).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \11\ See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    Sec. 989.32  Noise.
    
        Aircraft noise data files used for analysis during EIAP will be 
    submitted to HQ AFCEE for review and validation prior to public 
    release, and upon completion of the EIAP for database entry. Utilize 
    the current NOISEMAP computer program for air installations and the 
    Assessment System for Aircraft Noise for military training routes and 
    military operating areas. Guidance on standardized Air Force noise data 
    development and analysis procedures is available from HQ AFCEE/EC. 
    Develop EIAP land use analysis relating to aircraft noise impacts 
    originating from air installations following procedures in AFI 32-7063, 
    Air Installation Compatible Use Zone. Draft EIAP aircraft noise/land 
    use analysis associated with air installations will be coordinated with 
    the MAJCOM AICUZ program manager.
    
    
    Sec. 989.33.  Environmental justice.
    
        During the preparation of environmental analyses under this 
    instruction, the EPF should ensure compliance with the provisions of 
    E.O. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 
    Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, and Executive 
    Memorandum of February 11, 1994, regarding E.O. 12898.
    
    
    Sec. 989.34  Special and emergency procedures.
    
        (a) Special procedures. During the EIAP, unique situations may 
    arise that require EIAP strategies different than those set forth in 
    this part. These situations may warrant modification of the procedures 
    in this part. EPFs should only consider procedural deviations when the 
    resulting process would benefit the Air Force and still comply with 
    NEPA and CEQ regulations. EPFs must forward all requests for procedural 
    deviations to HQ USAF/ILEV (or ANGRC/CEV) for review and approval by 
    SAF/MIQ.
        (b) Emergency procedures (40 CFR 1506.11). Emergency situations do 
    not exempt the Air Force from complying with NEPA, but do allow 
    emergency response while completing the EIAP. Certain emergency 
    situations may make it necessary to take immediate action having 
    significant environmental impact, without observing all the provisions 
    of the CEQ regulations or this part. If possible, promptly notify HQ 
    USAF/ILEV, for SAF/MIQ coordination and CEQ consultation, before 
    undertaking emergency actions that would otherwise not comply with NEPA 
    or this part. The immediate notification requirement does not apply 
    where emergency action must be taken without delay. Coordination in 
    this instance must take place as soon as practicable.
    
    
    Sec. 989.35  Reporting requirements.
    
        (a) EAs, EISs, and mitigation measures will be tracked at bases and 
    MAJCOMs through an appropriate environmental management system.
        (b) Proponents, EPFs, and public affairs offices may utilize the 
    World Wide Web, in addition to more traditional means, to notify the 
    public of availability of EAs and EISs. When possible, allow 
    distribution of documents electronically. Public review comments should 
    be required in writing, rather than by electronic mail.
        (c) All documentation will be disposed of according to AFMAN 37-
    139, Records Disposition--Standards.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \12\ See footnote 1 to Sec. 989.1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    Sec. 989.36  Waivers.
    
        In order to deal with unusual circumstances and to allow growth in 
    the NEPA process, SAF/MIQ may grant waivers to those procedures 
    contained in this instruction not required by NEPA or the CEQ 
    Regulations. Such waivers shall not be used to limit compliance with 
    NEPA or the CEQ Regulations but only to substitute other, more suitable 
    procedures relative to the context of the particular action. Such 
    waivers may also be granted on occasion to allow experimentation in 
    procedures in order to allow growth in the EIAP. This authority may not 
    be delegated.
    
    
    Sec. 989.37  Procedures for analysis abroad.
    
        Procedures for analysis of environmental actions abroad are 
    contained in 32 CFR Part 187. That directive provides comprehensive 
    policies, definitions, and procedures for implementing E.O. 12114. For 
    analysis of Air Force actions abroad, 32 CFR Part 187 will be followed.
    
    
    Sec. 989.38  Requirements for analysis abroad.
    
        (a) The EPF will generally perform the same functions for analysis 
    of actions abroad that it performs in the United States. In addition to 
    the requirements of 32 CFR Part 187, the following Air Force specific 
    rules apply:
        (b) For EAs dealing with global commons (geographic areas beyond 
    the jurisdiction of the United States or any foreign nation), HQ USAF/
    ILEV will review actions that are above the MAJCOM approval authority. 
    In this instance, approval authority refers to the same approval 
    authority that would apply to an EA in the United States. The EPF 
    documents a decision not to do an EIS.
    
    [[Page 38139]]
    
        (c) For EISs dealing with the global commons, the EPF provides 
    sufficient copies to HQ USAF/ILEV for the HQ USAF ESOHC review and 
    AFCEE/EC technical review. After ESOHC review, the EPF makes a 
    recommendation as to whether the proposed draft EIS will be released as 
    a draft EIS.
        (d) For environmental studies and environmental reviews, forward, 
    when appropriate, environmental studies and reviews to HQ USAF/ILEV for 
    coordination among appropriate federal agencies. HQ USAF/ILEV makes 
    environmental studies and reviews available to the Department of State 
    and other interested federal agencies, and, on request, to the United 
    States public, in accordance with 32 CFR Part 187. HQ USAF/ILEV also 
    may inform interested foreign governments or furnish copies of studies, 
    in accordance with 32 CFR Part 187.
    
    Appendix A to Part 989--Glossary of References, Abbreviations, 
    Acronyms, and Terms
    
    References
    
    Legislative
    
    10 U.S.C. 2687, Base Closures and Realignments
    42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    42 U.S.C. 7506(c), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
    42 U.S.C. 13101(b), Pollution Prevention Act of 1990
    43 U.S.C. 155-158, Engle Act
    
    Executive Orders
    
    Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, May 24, 1977
    Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, May 24, 1977
    Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal 
    Actions, January 4, 1979
    Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, 
    July 14, 1982
    Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
    Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, February 
    11, 1994
    
    U.S. Government Agency Publications
    
    Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the 
    Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 40 
    CFR parts 1500-1508
    Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 4715.1, Environmental 
    Security
    Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 6050.7, Environmental Effects 
    Abroad of Major Department of Defense Actions, March 31, 1979 (32 
    CFR Part 187)
    Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 4715.9, Environmental 
    Planning and Analysis
    DoDD 5000.1, Defense Acquisition
    Department of Defense Regulation 5000.2-R, Mandatory Procedures for 
    Major Defense Acquisition Programs and Major Automated Information 
    Systems
    
    Air Force Publications
    
    AFPD 32-70, Environmental Quality
    AFI 32-1021, Planning and Programming of Facility Construction 
    Projects
    AFI 32-7002, Environmental Information Management System
    AFI 32-7005, Environmental Protection Committees
    AFI 32-7040, Air Quality Compliance
    AFI 32-7062, Air Force Comprehensive Planning
    AFI 32-7063, Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Program
    AFI 32-7064, Integrated Natural Resources Management
    AFI 32-7080, Pollution Prevention Program
    AFI 35-202, Environmental Community Involvement
    AFI 35-205, Air Force Security and Policy Review Program
    AFMAN 37-139, Records Disposition--Standards
    
    Abbreviations and Acronyms
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Abbreviation or Acronym                     Definition
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    AFCEE........................  Air Force Center for Environmental
                                    Excellence
    AFCEE/EC.....................  Air Force Center for Environmental
                                    Excellence/Environmental Conservation
                                    and Planning Directorate
    AFI..........................  Air Force Instruction
    AFLSA/JACE...................  Air Force Legal Services Agency/
                                    Environmental Law and Litigation
                                    Division
    AFLSA/JAJT...................  Air Force Legal Services Agency/Trial
                                    Judiciary Division
    AFMAN........................  Air Force Manual
    AFMOA/SG.....................  Air Force Medical Operations Agency/
                                    Aerospace Medicine Office
    AFPD.........................  Air Force Policy Directive
    AFRES........................  Air Force Reserve
    ANG..........................  Air National Guard
    ANGRC........................  Air National Guard Readiness Center
    CATEX........................  Categorical Exclusion
    CEQ..........................  Council on Environmental Quality
    CFR..........................  Code of Federal Regulations
    DoD..........................  Department of Defense
    DoDD.........................  Department of Defense Directive
    DoDI.........................  Department of Defense Instruction
    DOPAA........................  Description of Proposed Action and
                                    Alternatives
    EA...........................  Environmental Assessment
    EIAP.........................  Environmental Impact Analysis Process
    EIS..........................  Environmental Impact Statement
    E.O..........................  Executive Order
    EPA..........................  Environmental Protection Agency
    EPC..........................  Environmental Protection Committee
    EPF..........................  Environmental Planning Function
    ESOHC........................  Environmental Safety and Occupational
                                    Health Committee
    FAA..........................  Federal Aviation Administration
    FEIS.........................  Final Environmental Impact Statement
    FOA..........................  Field Operating Agency
    FONPA........................  Finding of No Practicable Alternative
    FONSI........................  Finding of No Significant Impact
    GSA..........................  General Services Administration
    HQ AFMC......................  Headquarters, Air Force Materiel Command
    HQ USAF......................  Headquarters, United States Air Force
    HQ USAF/ILE..................  The Air Force Civil Engineer
    MAJCOM.......................  Major Command
    MGM..........................  Materiel Group Manager
    MOA..........................  Military Operating Area
    MOU..........................  Memorandum of Understanding
    
    [[Page 38140]]
    
     
    MSL..........................  Mean Sea Level
    NEPA.........................  National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    NGB-CF.......................  National Guard Bureau Air Directorate
    NGB-JA.......................  National Guard Bureau Office of the Staff
                                    Judge Advocate
    NGB-PA.......................  National Guard Bureau Office of Public
                                    Affairs
    NOA..........................  Notice of Availability
    NOI..........................  Notice of Intent
    OSD..........................  Office of the Secretary of Defense
    OSHA.........................  Occupational Safety and Health
                                    Administration
    PDEIS........................  Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact
                                    Statement
    PGM..........................  Product Group Manager
    REO..........................  Air Force Regional Environmental Office
    ROD..........................  Record of Decision
    SAF/AQR......................  Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air
                                    Force (Science, Technology, and
                                    Engineering)
    SAF/GC.......................  Air Force General Counsel
    SAF/LL.......................  Air Force Office of Legislative Liaison
    SAF/MI.......................  Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
                                    Manpower, Reserve Affairs,
                                    Installations, and Environment
    SAF/MIQ......................  Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air
                                    Force (Environment, Safety, and
                                    Occupational Health)
    SAF/PA.......................  Air Force Office of Public Affairs
    SJA..........................  Staff Judge Advocate
    SM...........................  Single Manager
    SPD..........................  Single Program Director
    SPOC.........................  Single Point of Contact
    TDY..........................  Temporary Duty
    U.S.C........................  United States Code
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Terms
    
        Note: All definitions in the CEQ Regulations, 40 CFR part 1508, 
    apply to this part. In addition, the following definitions apply:
    
        Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives (DOPAA)--An Air 
    Force document that is the framework for assessing the environmental 
    impact of a proposal. It describes the purpose and need for the 
    action, the alternatives to be considered, and the rationale used to 
    arrive at the proposed action. The DOPAA often unfolds as writing 
    progresses. The DOPAA can change during the internal scoping and 
    public scoping process, especially as ideas and issues become 
    clearer, and as new information makes changes necessary.
        Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP)--The Air Force 
    program that implements the requirements of NEPA and requirements 
    for analysis of environmental effects abroad under E.O. 12114.
        Finding of No Practicable Alternative (FONPA)--Finding contained 
    in a FONSI or ROD, according to Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, 
    that explains why there are no practicable alternatives to an action 
    affecting a wetland or floodplain, based on appropriate EIAP 
    analysis or other documentation.
        Interdisciplinary--An approach to environmental analysis 
    involving more than one discipline or branch of learning.
        Pollution Prevention--``Source reduction,'' as defined under the 
    Pollution Prevention Act, and other practices that reduce or 
    eliminate pollutants through increased efficiency in the use of raw 
    materials, energy, water, or other resources, or in the protection 
    of natural resources by conservation.
        Proponent--Any office, unit, or activity that proposes to 
    initiate an action.
        Scoping--A process for proposing alternatives to be addressed 
    and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed 
    action. Scoping includes affirmative efforts to communicate with 
    other federal agencies, state, Tribal, and local governments, and 
    the public.
        Single Manager--Any one of the Air Force designated weapon 
    system program managers, that include System Program Directors 
    (SPDs), Product Group Managers (PGMs), and Materiel Group Managers 
    (MGMs).
        United States--All states, commonwealths, the District of 
    Columbia, territories and possessions of the United States, and all 
    waters and airspace subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the 
    United States. The territories and possessions of the United States 
    include American Samoa, Guam, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway 
    Island, Navassa Island, Palmyra Island, the Virgin Islands, and Wake 
    Island.
    
    Appendix B to Part 984--Categorical Exclusions
    
    A2.1. Proponent/EPF Responsibility
    
        Although a proposed action may qualify for a categorical 
    exclusion from the requirements for environmental impact analysis 
    under NEPA, this exclusion does not relieve the EPF or the proponent 
    of responsibility for complying with all other environmental 
    requirements related to the proposal, including requirements for 
    permits, state regulatory agency review of plans, and so on.
    
    A2.2. Additional Analysis
    
        Circumstances may arise in which usually categorically excluded 
    actions may have a significant environmental impact and, therefore, 
    may generate a requirement for further environmental analysis. 
    Examples of situations where such unique circumstances may be 
    present include:
        A2.2.1. Actions of greater scope or size than generally 
    experienced for a particular category of action.
        A2.2.2. Potential for degradation (even though slight) of 
    already marginal or poor environmental conditions.
        A2.2.3. Initiating a degrading influence, activity, or effect in 
    areas not already significantly modified from their natural 
    condition.
        A2.2.4. Use of unproved technology.
        A2.2.5. Use of hazardous or toxic substances that may come in 
    contact with the surrounding environment.
        A2.2.6. Presence of threatened or endangered species, 
    archaeological remains, historical sites, or other protected 
    resources.
        A2.2.7. Proposals adversely affecting areas of critical 
    environmental concern, such as prime or unique agricultural lands, 
    wetlands, coastal zones, wilderness areas, floodplains, or wild and 
    scenic river areas.
        A2.2.8. Proposals with disproportionately high and adverse human 
    health or environmental effects on minority populations or low-
    income populations.
    
    A2.3. CATEX List
    
        Actions that are categorically excluded in the absence of unique 
    circumstances are:
        A2.3.1. Routine procurement of goods and services.
        A2.3.2. Routine Commissary and Exchange operations.
        A2.3.3. Routine recreational and welfare activities.
        A2.3.4. Normal personnel, fiscal or budgeting, and 
    administrative activities and decisions including those involving 
    military and civilian personnel (for example, recruiting, 
    processing, paying, and records keeping).
        A2.3.5. Preparing, revising, or adopting regulations, 
    instructions, directives, or guidance documents that do not, 
    themselves, result in an action being taken.
        A2.3.6. Preparing, revising, or adopting regulations, 
    instructions, directives, or guidance documents that implement 
    (without substantial change) the regulations,
    
    [[Page 38141]]
    
    instructions, directives, or guidance documents from higher 
    headquarters or other Federal agencies with superior subject matter 
    jurisdiction.
        A2.3.7. Continuation or resumption of pre-existing actions, 
    where there is no substantial change in existing conditions or 
    existing land uses and where the actions were originally evaluated 
    in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and surrounding 
    circumstances have not changed.
        A2.3.8. Performing interior and exterior construction within the 
    5-foot line of a building without changing the land use of the 
    existing building.
        A2.3.9. Repairing and replacing real property installed 
    equipment.
        A2.3.10. Routine facility maintenance and repair that does not 
    involve disturbing significant quantities of hazardous materials 
    such as asbestos and lead-based paint.
        A2.3.11. Actions similar to other actions which have been 
    determined to have an insignificant impact in a similar setting as 
    established in an EIS or an EA resulting in a FONSI. The EPF must 
    document application of this CATEX on AF Form 813, specifically 
    identifying the previous Air Force approved environmental document 
    which provides the basis for this determination.
        A2.3.12. Installing, operating, modifying, and routinely 
    repairing and replacing utility and communications systems, data 
    processing cable, and similar electronic equipment that use existing 
    rights of way, easements, distribution systems, or facilities.
        A2.3.13. Installing or modifying airfield operational equipment 
    (such as runway visual range equipment, visual glide path systems, 
    and remote transmitter or receiver facilities) on airfield property 
    and usually accessible only to maintenance personnel.
        A2.3.14. Installing on previously developed land, equipment that 
    does not substantially alter land use (i.e., land use of more than 
    one acre). This includes outgrants to private lessees for similar 
    construction. The EPF must document application of this CATEX on AF 
    Form 813.
        A2.3.15. Laying-away or mothballing a production facility or 
    adopting a reduced maintenance level at a closing installation when 
    (1) agreement on any required historic preservation effort has been 
    reached with the state historic preservation officer and the 
    Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and (2) no degradation in 
    the environmental restoration program will occur.
        A2.3.16. Acquiring land and ingrants (50 acres or less) for 
    activities otherwise subject to CATEX. The EPF must document 
    application of this CATEX on AF Form 813.
        A2.3.17. Transferring land, facilities, and personal property 
    for which the General Services Administration (GSA) is the action 
    agency. Such transfers are excluded only if there is no change in 
    land use and GSA complies with its NEPA requirements.
        A2.3.18. Transferring administrative control of real property 
    within the Air Force or to another military department or to another 
    Federal agency, not including GSA, including returning public domain 
    lands to the Department of the Interior.
        A2.3.19. Granting easements, leases, licenses, rights of entry, 
    and permits to use Air Force controlled property for activities 
    that, if conducted by the Air Force, could be categorically excluded 
    in accordance with this attachment. The EPF must document 
    application of this CATEX on AF Form 813.
        A2.3.20. Converting in-house services to contract services.
        A2.3.21. Routine personnel decreases and increases, including 
    work force conversion to either on-base contractor operation or to 
    military operation from contractor operation (excluding base closure 
    and realignment actions which are subject to congressional reporting 
    under 10 U.S.C. 2687).
        A2.3.22. Routine, temporary movement of personnel, including 
    deployments of personnel on a TDY basis where existing facilities 
    are used.
        A2.3.23. Personnel reductions resulting from workload 
    adjustments, reduced personnel funding levels, skill imbalances, or 
    other similar causes.
        A2.3.24. Study efforts that involve no commitment of resources 
    other than personnel and funding allocations.
        A2.3.25. The analysis and assessment of the natural environment 
    without altering it (inspections, audits, surveys, investigations). 
    This CATEX includes the granting of any permits necessary for such 
    surveys, provided that the technology or procedure involved is well 
    understood and there are no adverse environmental impacts 
    anticipated from it. The EPF must document application of this CATEX 
    on AF Form 813.
        A2.3.26. Undertaking specific investigatory activities to 
    support remedial action activities for purposes of cleanup of 
    Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) and Resource 
    Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action sites. These 
    activities include soil borings and sampling, installation, and 
    operation of test or monitoring wells. This CATEX applies to studies 
    that assist in determining final cleanup actions when they are 
    conducted in accordance with legal agreements, administrative 
    orders, or work plans previously agreed to by EPA or state 
    regulators.
        A2.3.27. Normal or routine basic and applied scientific research 
    confined to the laboratory and in compliance with all applicable 
    safety, environmental, and natural resource conservation laws.
        A2.3.28. Routine transporting of hazardous materials and wastes 
    in accordance with applicable Federal, state, interstate, and local 
    laws.
        A2.3.29. Emergency handling and transporting of small quantities 
    of chemical surety material or suspected chemical surety material, 
    whether or not classified as hazardous or toxic waste, from a 
    discovery site to a permitted storage, treatment, or disposal 
    facility.
        A2.3.30. Immediate responses to the release or discharge of oil 
    or hazardous materials in accordance with an approved Spill 
    Prevention and Response Plan or Spill Contingency Plan or that are 
    otherwise consistent with the requirements of the National 
    Contingency Plan.
        A2.3.31. Relocating a small number of aircraft to an 
    installation with similar aircraft that does not result in a 
    significant increase of total flying hours or the total number of 
    aircraft operations, a change in flight tracks, or an increase in 
    permanent personnel or logistics support requirements at the 
    receiving installation. Repetitive use of this CATEX at an 
    installation requires further analysis to determine there are no 
    cumulative impacts. The EPF must document application of this CATEX 
    on AF Form 813.
        A2.3.32. Temporary (for less than 30 days) increases in air 
    operations up to 50 percent of the typical installation aircraft 
    operation rate or increases of 50 operations a day, whichever is 
    greater. Repetitive use of this CATEX at an installation requires 
    further analysis to determine there are no cumulative impacts.
        A2.3.33. Flying activities that comply with the Federal aviation 
    regulations, that are dispersed over a wide area and that do not 
    frequently (more than once a day) pass near the same ground points. 
    This CATEX does not cover regular activity on established routes or 
    within special use airspace.
        A2.3.34. Supersonic flying operations over land and above 30,000 
    feet MSL, or over water and above 10,000 feet MSL and more than 15 
    nautical miles from land.
        A2.3.35. Formal requests to the FAA, or host-nation equivalent 
    agency, to establish or modify special use airspace (for example, 
    restricted areas, warning areas, military operating areas) and 
    military training routes for subsonic operations that have a base 
    altitude of 3,000 feet above ground level or higher. The EPF must 
    document application of this CATEX on AF Form 813, which must 
    accompany the request to the FAA.
        A2.3.36. Adopting airfield approach, departure, and en route 
    procedures that are less than 3,000 feet above ground level, and 
    that also do not route air traffic over noise-sensitive areas, 
    including residential neighborhoods or cultural, historical, and 
    outdoor recreational areas. The EPF may categorically exclude such 
    air traffic patterns at or greater than 3,000 feet above ground 
    level regardless of underlying land use.
        A2.3.37. Participating in ``air shows'' and fly-overs by Air 
    Force aircraft at non-Air Force public events after obtaining FAA 
    coordination and approval.
        A2.3.38. Conducting Air Force ``open houses'' and similar 
    events, including air shows, golf tournaments, home shows, and the 
    like, where crowds gather at an Air Force installation, so long as 
    crowd and traffic control, etc., have not in the past presented 
    significant safety or environmental impacts.
    
    Appendix C to Part 989--Procedures for Holding Public Hearings on 
    Draft Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
    
    A.3.1. General Information
    
        A3.1.1. The Office of the Judge Advocate General, through the 
    Air Force Legal Services Agency/Trial Judiciary Division (AFLSA/
    JAJT) and its field organization, is responsible for conducting 
    public hearings and assuring verbatim transcripts are accomplished.
        A3.1.2. The EPF, with proponent, AFLSA/JAJT, and Public Affairs 
    support, establishes the date and location, arranges for hiring the 
    court reporter, funds temporary duty costs for
    
    [[Page 38142]]
    
    the hearing officer, makes logistical arrangements (for example, 
    publishing notices, arranging for press coverage, obtaining tables 
    and chairs, etc.).
        A3.1.3. The procedures outlined below have proven themselves 
    through many prior applications. However, there may be rare 
    instances when circumstances warrant conducting public hearings 
    under a different format, e.g., public/town meeting, information 
    booths, third party moderator, etc. In these cases, forward a 
    request with justification to deviate from these procedures to USAF/
    ILEVP for SAF/MIQ approval.
    
    A3.2. Notice of Hearing (40 CFR 1506.6)
    
        A3.2.1. Public Affairs officers:
        A3.2.1.1. Announce public hearings and assemble a mailing list 
    of individuals to be invited.
        A3.2.1.2. Distribute announcements of a hearing to all 
    interested individuals and agencies, including the print and 
    electronic media.
        A3.2.1.3. Place a newspaper display advertisement announcing the 
    time and place of the hearing as well as other pertinent 
    particulars.
        A3.2.1.4. Distribute the notice in a timely manner so it will 
    reach recipients or be published at least 15 days before the hearing 
    date. Distribute notices fewer than 15 days before the hearing date 
    when you have substantial justification and if the justification for 
    a shortened notice period appears in the notice.
        A3.2.1.5. Develop and distribute news release.
        A3.2.2. If an action has effects of national concern, publish 
    notices in the Federal Register and mail notices to national 
    organizations that have an interest in the matter.
        A3.2.2.1. Because of the longer lead time required by the 
    Federal Register, send out notices for publication in the Federal 
    Register to arrive at HQ USAF/CEV no later than 30 days before the 
    hearing date.
        A3.2.3. The notice should include:
        A3.2.3.1. Date, time, place, and subject of the hearing.
        A3.2.3.2. A description of the general format of the hearing.
        A3.2.3.3. The name and telephone number of a person to contact 
    for more information.
        A3.2.3.4. A suggestion that speakers submit (in writing or by 
    return call) their intention to participate, with an indication of 
    which environmental impact (or impacts) they wish to address.
        A3.2.3.5. Any limitation on the length of oral statements.
        A3.2.3.6. A suggestion that speakers submit statements of 
    considerable length in writing.
        A3.2.3.7. A summary of the proposed action.
        A3.2.3.8. The location where the draft EIS and any appendices 
    are available for examination.
    
    A.3.3. Availability of the Draft EIS to the Public.
    
        The EPF makes copies of the Draft EIS available to the public at 
    an Air Force installation and other reasonably accessible place in 
    the vicinity of the proposed action and public hearing (e.g., public 
    library).
    
    A3.4. Place of the Hearing
    
        The EPF arranges to hold the hearing at a time and place and in 
    an area readily accessible to military and civilian organizations 
    and individuals interested in the proposed action. Generally, the 
    EPF should arrange to hold the hearing in an off-base civilian 
    facility, which is more accessible to the public.
    
    A3.5. Hearing Officer
    
        A3.5.1. The AFLSA/JAJT selects a military trial judge to preside 
    over hearings. The hearing officer does not need to have personal 
    knowledge of the project, other than familiarity with the Draft EIS. 
    In no event should the hearing officer be a judge advocate from the 
    proponent or subordinate command, be assigned to the same 
    installation with which the hearing is concerned, or have 
    participated personally in the development of the project, or have 
    rendered legal advice or assistance with respect to it (or be 
    expected to do so in the future). The principal qualification of the 
    hearing officer should be the ability to conduct a hearing as an 
    impartial participant.
        A3.5.2. The primary duties of the hearing officer are to make 
    sure that the hearing is orderly, is recorded, and that interested 
    parties have a reasonable opportunity to speak. The presiding 
    officer should direct the speakers' attention to the purpose of the 
    hearing, which is to consider the environmental impacts of the 
    proposed project. Speakers should have a time limit to ensure 
    maximum public input to the decision-maker.
    
    A3.6. Record of the Hearing
    
        The EIS preparation team must make sure a verbatim transcribed 
    record of the hearing is prepared, including all stated positions, 
    all questions, and all responses. The EIS preparation team should 
    append all written submissions that parties provide to the hearing 
    officer during the hearing to the record as attachments. The EIS 
    preparation team should also append a list of persons who spoke at 
    the hearing and submitted written comments and a list of the 
    organizations or interests they represent with addresses. The EIS 
    preparation team must make sure a verbatim transcript of the hearing 
    is provided to the EPF for inclusion as an appendix to the Final 
    EIS. The officer should also ensure that all persons who request a 
    copy of the transcript get a copy when it is completed. Copying 
    charges are determined according to 40 CFR 1506.6(f).
    
    A3.7. Hearing Format
    
        Use the format outlined below as a general guideline for 
    conducting a hearing. Hearing officers should tailor the format to 
    meet the hearing objectives. These objectives provide information to 
    the public, record opinions of interested persons on environmental 
    impacts of the proposed action, and set out alternatives for 
    improving the EIS and for later consideration.
        A3.7.1. Record of Attendees. The hearing officer should make a 
    list of all persons who wish to speak at the hearing to help the 
    hearing officer in calling on these individuals, to ensure an 
    accurate transcript of the hearing, and to enable the officer to 
    send a copy of the Final EIS (40 CFR 1502.19) to any person, 
    organization, or agency that provided substantive comments at the 
    hearing. The hearing officer should assign assistants to the 
    entrance of the hearing room to provide cards on which individuals 
    can voluntarily write their names, addresses, telephone numbers, 
    organizations they represent, and titles; whether they desire to 
    make a statement at the hearing; and what environmental area(s) they 
    wish to address. The hearing officer can then use the cards to call 
    on individuals who desire to make statements. However, the hearing 
    officer will not deny entry to the hearing or the right to speak to 
    people who decline to submit this information on cards.
        A3.7.2. Introductory Remarks. The hearing officer should first 
    introduce himself or herself and the EIS preparation team. Then the 
    hearing officer should make a brief statement on the purpose of the 
    hearing and give the general ground rules on how it will be 
    conducted. This is the proper time to welcome any dignitaries who 
    are present. The hearing officer should explain that he or she does 
    not make any recommendation or decision on whether the proposed 
    project should be continued, modified, or abandoned or how the EIS 
    should be prepared.
        A3.7.3. Explanation of the Proposed Action. The Air Force EIS 
    preparation team representative should next explain the proposed 
    action, the alternatives, the potential environmental consequences, 
    and the EIAP.
        A3.7.4. Questions by Attendees. After the EIS team 
    representative explains the proposed action, alternatives, and 
    consequences, the hearing officer should give attendees a chance to 
    ask questions to clarify points they may not have understood. The 
    EIS preparation team may have to reply in writing, at a later date, 
    to some of the questions. While the Air Force EIS preparation team 
    should be as responsive as possible in answering questions about the 
    proposal, they should not become involved in debate with questioners 
    over the merits of the proposed action. Cross-examination of 
    speakers, either those of the Air Force or the public, is not the 
    purpose of an informal hearing. If necessary, the hearing officer 
    may limit questioning or conduct portions of the hearing to ensure 
    proper lines of inquiry. However, the hearing officer should include 
    all questions in the hearing record.
        A3.7.5. Statement of Attendees. The hearing officer must give 
    the persons attending the hearing a chance to present oral or 
    written statements. The hearing officer should be sure the recorder 
    has the name and address of each person who submits an oral or 
    written statement. The officer should also permit the attendees to 
    submit written statements within a reasonable time, usually two 
    weeks, following the hearing. The officer should allot a reasonable 
    length of time at the hearing for receiving oral statements. The 
    officer may waive any announced time limit at his or her discretion. 
    The hearing officer may allow those who have not previously 
    indicated a desire to speak to identify themselves and be recognized 
    only after those who have previously indicated their intentions to 
    speak have spoken.
    
    [[Page 38143]]
    
        A3.7.6. Ending or Extending a Hearing. The hearing officer has 
    the power to end the hearing if the hearing becomes disorderly, if 
    the speakers become repetitive, or for other good cause. In any such 
    case, the hearing officer must make a statement for the record on 
    the reasons for terminating the hearing. The hearing officer may 
    also extend the hearing beyond the originally announced date and 
    time. The officer should announce the extension to a later date or 
    time during the hearing and prior to the hearing if possible.
    
    A3.8. Adjourning the Hearing
    
        After all persons have had a chance to speak, when the hearing 
    has culled a representative view of public opinion, or when the time 
    set for the hearing and any reasonable extension of time has ended, 
    the hearing officer adjourns the hearing. In certain circumstances 
    (for example, if the hearing officer believes it is likely that some 
    participants will introduce new and relevant information), the 
    hearing officer may justify scheduling an additional, separate 
    hearing session. If the hearing officer makes the decision to hold 
    another hearing while presiding over the original hearing he or she 
    should announce that another public hearing will be scheduled or is 
    under consideration. The officer gives notice of a decision to 
    continue these hearings in essentially the same way he or she 
    announced the original hearing, time permitting. The Public Affairs 
    officer provides the required public notices and directs notices to 
    interested parties in coordination with the hearing officer. Because 
    of lead-time constraints, SAF/MIQ may waive Federal Register notice 
    requirements or advertisements in local publications. At the 
    conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer should inform the 
    attendees of the deadline (usually 2 weeks) to submit additional 
    written remarks in the hearing record. The officer should also 
    notify attendees of the deadline for the commenting period of the 
    Draft EIS.
    Janet A. Long,
    Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 99-17684 Filed 7-14-99; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 5001-05-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
7/6/1999
Published:
07/15/1999
Department:
Air Force Department
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Final rule.
Document Number:
99-17684
Dates:
July 6, 1999.
Pages:
38127-38143 (17 pages)
PDF File:
99-17684.pdf
CFR: (46)
32 CFR 1506.5)
32 CFR 989.18)
32 CFR 989.14(a)
32 CFR 989.13(b)
32 CFR 989.8(c)
More ...