[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6000-6005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-2450]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 372

[Docket No. 93-165-3]
RIN 0579-AA33


National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: These final procedures set forth the principles and practices 
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service will follow to comply 
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Council on 
Environmental Quality regulations, and the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy 
Act. These procedures replace APHIS Guidelines Concerning 
Implementation of NEPA Procedures.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 3, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Robert E. Pizel, Branch Chief, Biotechnology, Biologics, and 
Environmental Protection, APHIS, USDA, P.O. Drawer 810, Riverdale, MD 
20738. The telephone number for the agency contact will change when 
agency offices in Hyattsville, MD, move to Riverdale, MD, during 
January 1995. Telephone: (301) 436-8565 (Hyattsville); (301) 734-8565 
(Riverdale).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The regulations of the President's Council on Environmental Quality 
(CEQ) implementing section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy 
Act (hereinafter referred to as NEPA) are applicable to and binding on 
all agencies of the Federal Government. Pursuant to the CEQ 
implementing regulations, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service (APHIS) is implementing procedures to ensure that its planning 
and decisionmaking are in accordance with the policies and purposes of 
NEPA. The CEQ implementing regulations direct that agencies shall 
include, at a minimum, procedures required by 40 CFR 1501.2(d), 
1502.9(c)(3), 1505.1, 1506.6(e), 1507.3(b)(2), and 1508.4 
[[Page 6001]] (1992). APHIS' procedures supplant the APHIS Guidelines 
Concerning Implementation of NEPA Procedures originally published in 
the Federal Register on August 28, 1979 (44 FR 50381-50384) and 
corrections as published in the Federal Register on August 31, 1979 (44 
FR 51272-51274).
    On June 3, 1994, we published in the Federal Register (59 FR 28814-
28821, Docket No. 93-165-1) proposed procedures implementing CEQ's NEPA 
regulations. Comments on the proposed procedures were required to be 
received on or before July 18, 1994. During the comment period, we 
received a request from the Association of Natural Bio-control 
Producers that we extend the comment period. The comment stated that 
additional time was necessary to allow interested parties to evaluate 
fully and respond to the proposed procedures. In response to this 
comment, we published a notice in the Federal Register on July 22, 1994 
(59 FR 37442, Docket No. 93-165-2), reopening and extending the comment 
period until August 2, 1994.
    We received seven comments by August 2, 1994, from the following 
commenters: American Veterinary Medical Association; Asgrow Seed 
Company; Association of Natural Bio-control Producers; Environmental 
Defense Fund; State of California, Department of Food and Agriculture; 
The Humane Society of the United States; and the Office of the 
Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior. We carefully 
considered all of the comments we received. Noteworthy issues that were 
raised in comments--whether or not they prompted changes to the 
proposed procedures--are developed below either under the appropriate 
section headings or, if they do not fit within a section heading, under 
the ``miscellaneous'' heading that follows. Sections 372.1 through 
372.3 and 372.7 through 372.10 were not addressed in comments and, 
except where language was modified to improve clarity or eliminate, 
insofar as possible, ``jargon,'' remain as originally proposed.

Discussion of Issues

Definitions (Section 372.4)

    One commenter, concerned that some language in the procedures is 
too species-specific, has suggested that APHIS broaden significantly 
its definition of ``environment.'' The term ``environment'' is not 
defined in these procedures. CEQ's regulations provide that the term 
```human environment' shall be interpreted comprehensively to include 
the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people 
with that environment.''\1\ In evaluating impacts of agency proposals 
and exploring alternatives under NEPA, we are guided by CEQ's 
interpretation of the term ``human environment.'' In certain cases, 
limiting language is used in these procedures, not to circumscribe the 
scope of required NEPA analysis, but in recognition of program 
jurisdictional constraints. In no case is language employed to limit 
APHIS' environmental responsibilities.

    \1\40 CFR 1508.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Classification of Actions (Section 372.5)

    One commenter has criticized the failure of this section to 
distinguish consistently between specific criteria for and 
identification of classes of action. He has also urged that examples 
and classes of action be presented with much greater specificity. We 
agree and have rewritten this section (the substance of which has not 
been changed) in an attempt to accommodate those concerns and for 
general clarification.

Categorically Excluded Actions

    One commenter has asked who will make the decisions regarding what 
is or is not categorically excluded. The decision in the first instance 
belongs to program personnel who should be greatly assisted in that 
effort through the rewrite of this section.
    Another commenter is ``concerned about the possibility that APHIS 
may, under the language now proposed, consider the seizure or removal 
of wild animals from a population for such purposes as disease testing 
as actions which are categorically excluded.'' The fact is that such 
seizures or removals, which are generally very limited in scope and 
humanely pursued, would seldom have the potential to affect 
significantly the quality of the human environment.\2\

    \2\If the animals to be tested were listed as endangered or 
threatened by the Federal Government or otherwise protected (by 
treaty, for example), then categorical exclusion would clearly not 
be appropriate. In that case, the environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement process (as well as any other 
required consultation or process) would be undertaken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter has inquired whether small-scale field tests of 
genetically engineered plants is included as a categorically excluded 
action under paragraph (c)(2), which provides an exclusion for 
``[a]ctivities that are carried out in laboratories, facilities, or 
other areas designed to eliminate the potential for harmful 
environmental effects.'' In fact, the environmental assessment process 
has been undertaken for hundreds of permits that have been issued to 
conduct small-scale (or ``confined,'' as expressed in current 
biotechnology literature) field tests of genetically engineered plants. 
In every case a finding of no significant impact was reached, reason 
enough to conclude that such tests ought to be categorically excluded. 
To eliminate any confusion, this action (including ``notifications,'' 
which are little more than logical extensions) will be described 
separately as an example of categorical exclusions under a retitled 
paragraph (c)(3). We emphasize, in response to concerns raised by 
another commenter on this subject, that this categorical exclusion 
applies only to confined field tests; unconfined testing would not 
qualify for categorical exclusion.
    Two other commenters maintain that the movement and release of at 
least some nonindigenous species also would qualify for categorical 
exclusion under the same exclusion theory as small-scale field tests of 
genetically engineered plants. We agree that categorical exclusion of 
some nonindigenous species activities--movement to and from 
``containment,'' as well as the release into a State's environment of 
pure cultures of organisms that are either native or are established 
introductions--is appropriate. These actions also will be described 
separately as examples of categorical exclusions under paragraph 
(c)(3).
    Finally, the substance of paragraph (c)(3) of the proposed 
procedures is provided as an example under paragraph (c)(1) of these 
final procedures. The substance of paragraph (c)(5) of the proposed 
procedures appears in these final procedures as paragraph (c)(3), which 
has been retitled ``Licensing and permitting'' and expanded to include 
activities described in the preceding two paragraphs.

Early Planning for Applicants and Non-APHIS Entities (Section 372.6)

    One commenter has complained that the failure to develop ``the 
necessary environmental data needs'' leaves potential applicants in the 
dark. This situation, according to the commenter, could lead to 
imposition of inconsistent and burdensome requirements. Data 
requirements have indeed been developed for some agency programs.\3\ 
Other programs are in the process of incorporating such requirements 
into their guidance.

    \3\See for example, 7 CFR 340.4 (data requirements for 
applications seeking authorization to introduce genetically 
engineered organisms into the environment). [[Page 6002]] 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Miscellaneous

Appeals
    One commenter has expressed concern about ``the absence of proposed 
procedures to provide the public with an opportunity to appeal APHIS 
decisions with which it disagrees.'' The appeal procedures, according 
to that commenter, should be made a part of the agency's NEPA 
procedures so that the public will not be forced ``to seek judicial 
review as the first and only response to inadequate NEPA documents.''
    We do not believe that the agency's NEPA procedures should be the 
vehicle through which APHIS decisions may be appealed. These procedures 
are designed to complement the CEQ regulations and to ensure that the 
NEPA process aids this agency's decisionmaking and contributes to 
public understanding of APHIS' duties and functions at all levels of 
administrative action. It is through NEPA's public process that the 
best possible documentation will be prepared; turning that process into 
a form of adjudication will do nothing to enhance document quality.
Emergencies
    The agency has been urged by one commenter to address 
``emergencies'' in its NEPA procedures. It has been recommended that 
(1) the term ``emergency'' be defined as ``a situation or occurrence of 
an extremely serious nature that has developed suddenly and 
unexpectedly and requires immediate action to address a serious threat 
to life or property,'' and (2) a provision be added to the procedures 
that would require the agency to consult with CEQ in emergency 
circumstances ``as soon as possible about alternative arrangements for 
compliance with NEPA.''
    The CEQ regulations, which deal expressly with ``emergency 
circumstances,'' have been (and will continue to be) complied with by 
APHIS as necessary. Duplicating the CEQ ``emergency'' regulations here 
would serve no useful purpose; indeed, we are discouraged from doing 
so.\4\

    \4\See 40 CFR 1507.3 (``Such procedures shall not paraphrase 
these regulations').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compliance Issues
    One commenter has expressed concern that Executive Order 12778 
``moves all decision making and document preparation to the highest 
possible level--USDA national staff in Hyattsville'' and that the 
executive order is at ``odds with CEQA [California Environmental 
Quality Act], and leaves [California citizens and officials] open to 
limitation under CEQA despite having met NEPA standards.''
    The notice of proposed rulemaking merely recited how these 
procedures are affected by Executive Order 12778, which we cannot 
disavow. But the fact is that APHIS has not centralized environmental 
decisionmaking; on the contrary, environmental decisionmaking at this 
agency is in the process of being decentralized. Furthermore, it is 
doubtful that California's CEQA would be found to be in ``conflict'' 
with this agency's procedures. Nevertheless, principles of federalism 
permit suits to be brought in State court under State law whether or 
not there is compliance with a counterpart Federal statute.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule 
has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive 
Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget.
    These procedures satisfy the requirement to implement CEQ's NEPA 
regulations and have been designed to reduce to a minimum the 
regulatory burden on small entities and all other individuals and 
organizations, public and private.
    Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that these procedures 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.

Executive Order 12372

    This program/activity is listed in the catalogy of Federal Domestic 
Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive 12372, which 
requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. 
(See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)

Executive Order 12778

    This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil 
Justice Reform. This rule (1) Preempts all State and local laws and 
regulations that are in conflict with these procedures; (2) has no 
retroactive effect; and (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not 
require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in 
court challenging this rule.

The National Environmental Policy Act

    Implementation of these procedures willl not significantly impact 
the quality of the human environment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    These procedures contain no information collection or recordkeeping 
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.).

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 372

    Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental assessment, 
Environmental impact statement, and National Environmental Policy Act.

    Accordingly, title 7, chapter III, of the Code of Federal 
Regulations is amended by adding a new part 372 to read as follows:

PART 372--NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES

Sec.
372.1  Purpose.
372.2  Designation of responsible APHIS official.
372.3  Information and assistance.
372.4  Definitions.
372.5  Classification of actions.
372.6  Early planning for applicants and non-APHIS entities.
372.7  Consultation.
372.8  Major planning and decision points and public involvement.
372.9  Processing and use of environmental documents.
372.10  Supplementing environmental impact statements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 40 CFR parts 1500-1508; 7 CFR 
parts 1b, 2.17, 2.51, 371.2, 371.2(m), 371.13(d), and 371.14(b).


Sec. 372.1  Purpose.

    These procedures implement section 102(2) of the National 
Environmental Policy Act by assuring early and adequate consideration 
of environmental factors in Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
planning and decisionmaking and by promoting the effective, efficient 
integration of all relevant environmental requirements under the 
National Environmental Policy Act. The goal of timely, relevant 
environmental analysis will be secured principally by adhering to the 
National Environmental Policy Act implementing regulations (40 CFR 
parts 1500-1508), especially provisions pertaining to timing 
(Sec. 1502.5), integration (Sec. 1502.25), and scope of analysis 
(Sec. 1508.25).


Sec. 372.2  Designation of responsible APHIS official.

    The Administrator of APHIS, or an agency official to whom the 
Administrator may formally delegate the task, is responsible for 
overall review of APHIS' NEPA compliance. [[Page 6003]] 


Sec. 372.3  Information and assistance.

    Information, including the status of studies, and the availability 
of reference materials, as well as the informal interpretations of 
APHIS' NEPA procedures and other forms of assistance, will be made 
available upon request to Environmental Analysis and Documentation, 
Biotechnology, Biologics, and Environmental Protection, APHIS, USDA, 
P.O. Drawer 810, Riverdale MD 20738, (301) 436-8565 (Hyattsville) or 
(301) 734-8565 (Riverdale).


Sec. 372.4  Definitions.

    The terminology set forth in the Council on Environmental Quality's 
(CEQ) implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1508 is incorporated 
herein. In addition, the following terms, as used in these procedures, 
are defined as follows:
    APHIS. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).
    Decisionmaker. The agency official responsible for executing 
findings of no significant impact in the environmental assessment 
process and the record of decision in the environmental impact 
statement process.
    Department. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
    Environmental unit. Environmental Analysis and Documentation, the 
analytical unit in Biotechnology, Biologics, and Environmental 
Protection responsible for coordinating APHIS' compliance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act and other environmental laws and 
regulations.


Sec. 372.5  Classification of actions.

    (a) Actions normally requiring environmental impact statements. 
This class of policymakings and rulemakings seeks to establish 
programmatic approaches to animal and plant health issues. Actions in 
this class typically involve the agency, an entire program, or a 
substantial program component and are characterized by their broad 
scope (often global or nationwide) and potential effect (impacting a 
wide range of environmental quality values or indicators, whether or 
not affected individuals or systems may be completely identified at the 
time). Ordinarily, new or untried methodologies, strategies, or 
techniques to deal with pervasive threats to animal and plant health 
are the subjects of this class of actions. Alternative means of dealing 
with those threats usually have not been well developed. Actions in 
this class include:
    (1) Formulation of contingent response strategies to combat future 
widespread outbreaks of animal and plant diseases; and
    (2) Adoption of strategic or other long-range plans that purport to 
adopt for future program application a preferred course of action.
    (b) Actions normally requiring environmental assessments but not 
necessarily environmental impact statements. This class of APHIS 
actions may involve the agency as a whole or an entire program, but 
generally is related to a more discrete program component and is 
characterized by its limited scope (particular sites, species, or 
activities) and potential effect (impacting relatively few 
environmental values or systems). Individuals and systems that may be 
affected can be identified. Methodologies, strategies, and techniques 
employed to deal with the issues at hand are seldom new or untested. 
Alternative means of dealing with those issues are well established. 
Mitigation measures are generally available and have been successfully 
employed. Actions in this class include:
    (1) Policymakings and rulemakings that seek to remedy specific 
animal and plant health risks or that may affect opportunities on the 
part of the public to influence agency environmental planning and 
decisionmaking. Examples of this category of actions include:
    (i) Development of program plans that seek to adopt strategies, 
methods, and techniques as the means of dealing with particular animal 
and plant health risks that may arise in the future;
    (ii) Implementation of program plans at the site-specific, action 
level, except for actions that are categorically excluded, as provided 
in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) Planning, design, construction, or acquisition of new 
facilities, or proposals for modifications to existing facilities.
    (3) Disposition of waste and other hazardous or toxic materials at 
laboratories and other APHIS facilities, except for actions that are 
categorically excluded, as provided in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (4) Approvals and issuance of permits for proposals involving 
genetically engineered or nonindigenous species, except for actions 
that are categorically excluded, as provided in paragraph (c) of this 
section.
    (5) Research or testing that:
    (i) Will be conducted outside of a laboratory or other containment 
area (field trials, for example); or
    (ii) Reaches a stage of development (e.g., formulation of 
premarketing strategies) that forecasts an irretrievable commitment to 
the resulting products or technology.
    (c) Categorically excluded actions. This class of APHIS actions 
shares many of the same characteristics--particularly in terms of the 
extent of program involvement, as well as the scope, effect of, and the 
availability of alternatives to proposed actions--as the class of 
actions that normally requires environmental assessments but not 
necessarily environmental impact statements. The major difference is 
that the means through which adverse environmental impacts may be 
avoided or minimized have actually been built right into the actions 
themselves. The efficacy of this approach generally has been 
established through testing and/or monitoring. The Department of 
Agriculture has also promulgated a listing of categorical exclusions 
that are applicable to all agencies within the department unless their 
procedures provide otherwise. Those categorical exclusions, codified at 
7 CFR 1b.3(a), are entirely appropriate for APHIS. Other actions in 
this class include:
    (1) Routine measures. (i) Routine measures, such as 
identifications, inspections, surveys, sampling that does not cause 
physical alteration of the environment, testing, seizures, quarantines, 
removals, sanitizing, inoculations, control, and monitoring employed by 
agency programs to pursue their missions and functions. Such measures 
may include the use--according to any label instructions or other 
lawful requirements and consistent with standard, published program 
practices and precautions--of chemicals, pesticides, or other 
potentially hazardous or harmful substances, materials, and target-
specific devices or remedies, provided that such use meets all of the 
following criteria (insofar as they may pertain to a particular 
action):
    (A) The use is localized or contained in areas where humans are not 
likely to be exposed, and is limited in terms of quantity, i.e., 
individualized dosages and remedies;
    (B) The use will not cause contaminants to enter water bodies, 
including wetlands;
    (C) The use does not adversely affect any federally protected 
species or critical habitat; and
    (D) The use does not cause bioaccumulation.
    (ii) Examples of routine measures include:
    (A) Inoculation or treatment of discrete herds of livestock or 
wildlife undertaken in contained areas (such as a barn or corral, a 
zoo, an exhibition, or an aviary);
    (B) Pesticide treatments applied to infested plants at a nursery; 
and
    (C) Isolated (for example, along a highway) weed control 
efforts. [[Page 6004]] 
    (2) Research and development activities. (i) Activities that are 
carried out in laboratories, facilities, or other areas designed to 
eliminate the potential for harmful environmental effects--internal or 
external--and to provide for lawful waste disposal.
    (ii) Examples of this category of actions include:
    (A) The development and/or production (including formulation, 
repackaging, movement, and distribution) of previously approved and/or 
licensed program materials, devices, reagents, and biologics;
    (B) Research, testing, and development of animal repellents; and
    (C) Development and production of sterile insects.
    (3) Licensing and permitting. (i) Issuance of a license, permit, or 
authorization to ship for field testing previously unlicensed 
veterinary biological products;
    (ii) Permitting, or acknowledgment of notifications for, confined 
field releases of genetically engineered organisms and products; and
    (iii) Permitting of:
    (A) Importation of nonindigenous species into containment 
facilities,
    (B) Interstate movement of nonindigenous species between 
containment facilities, or
    (C) Releases into a State's environment of pure cultures of 
organisms that are either native or are established introductions.
    (4) Rehabilitation of facilities. Rehabilitation of existing 
laboratories and other APHIS facilities, functional replacement of 
parts and equipment, and minor additions to such existing APHIS 
facilities.
    (d) Exceptions for categorically excluded actions. Whenever the 
decisionmaker determines that a categorically excluded action may have 
the potential to affect ``significantly'' the quality of the ``human 
environment,'' as those terms are defined at 40 CFR 1508.27 and 
1508.14, respectively, and environmental assessment or an environmental 
impact statement will be prepared. For example:
    (1) When any routine measure, the incremental impact of which, when 
added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 
(regardless of what agency or person undertakes such actions), has the 
potential for significant environmental impact;
    (2) When a previously licensed or approved biologic has been 
subsequently shown to be unsafe, or will be used at substantially 
higher dosage levels or for substantially different applications or 
circumstances than in the use for which the product was previously 
approved;
    (3) When a previously unlicensed veterinary biological product to 
be shipped for field testing contains live microorganisms or will not 
be used exclusively for in vitro diagnostic testing; or
    (4) When a confined field release of genetically engineered 
organisms or products involves new species or organisms or novel 
modifications that raise new issues.


Sec. 372.6  Early planning for applicants and non-APHIS entities.

    Each prospective applicant who anticipates the need for approval of 
proposed activities classified as normally requiring environmental 
documentation is encouraged to contact, at the earliest opportunities, 
APHIS' program staff.


Sec. 372.7  Consultation.

    Prospective applicants are encouraged to contact APHIS programs 
officials to determine what types of environmental analyses or 
documentation, if any, need to be prepared. NEPA documents will 
incorporate, to the fullest extent possible, surveys and studies 
required by other environmental statutes, such as the Endangered 
Species Act.


Sec. 372.8  Major planning and decision points and public involvement.

    (a) Major planning and decisions points. The NEPA process will be 
fully coordinated with APHIS planning in cooperation with program 
personnel. Specific decision points or milestones will be identified 
and communicated to the public and others in a notice of intent and in 
the context of the public scoping process.
    (b) Public involvement. There will be an early and open process for 
determining the scope of issues to be addressed in the environmental 
impact statement process.
    (1) A notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement 
will be published in the Federal Register as soon as it is determined 
that a proposed major Federal action has the potential to affect 
significantly the quality of the human environment. The notice may 
include a preliminary scope of environmental study. All public and 
other involvement in APHIS' environmental impact statement process, 
including the scoping process, commenting on draft documents, and 
participation in the preparation of any supplemental documents, will be 
pursuant to CEQ's implementing regulations.
    (2) Opportunities for public involvement in the environmental 
assessment process will be announced in the same fashion as the 
availability of environmental assessments and findings of no 
significant impact.
    (3) Notification of the availability of environmental assessments 
and findings of no significant impact for proposed activities will be 
published in the Federal Register, unless it is determined that the 
effects of the action are primarily of regional or local concern. Where 
the effects of the action are primarily of regional or local concern, 
notice will normally be provided through publication in a local or area 
newspaper of general circulation and/or the procedures implementing 
Executive Order 12372, ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal 
Programs.''
    (4) All environmental documents, comments received, and any 
underlying documents, including interagency correspondence where such 
correspondence transmits comments of Federal agencies on the 
environmental impact of proposals for which documents were prepared 
(except for privileged or confidential information (50 FR 38561)), will 
be made available to the public upon request. Materials to be made 
available will be provided without charge, to the extent practicable, 
or at a fee not more than the actual cost of reproducing copies 
required to be sent to other Federal agencies, including CEQ.


Sec. 372.9  Processing and use of environmental documents.

    (a) Environmental assessments will be forwarded immediately upon 
completion to the decisionmaker for a determination of whether the 
proposed action may have significant effects on the quality of the 
human environment, and for the execution, as appropriate, of a finding 
of no significant impact or a notice of intent to prepare an 
environmental impact statement.
    (1) The availability of environmental assessments will be announced 
by publishing a notice consistent with the notification provisions of 
Sec. 372.8.
    (2) Comments, if any, will be transmitted, together with any 
analyses and recommendations, to the APHIS decisionmaker who may then 
take appropriate action.
    (3) Changes to environmental assessments and findings of no 
significant impact that are prompted by comments, new information, or 
any other source, will normally be announced in the same manner as the 
notice of availability (except that all commenters will be mailed 
copies of changes directly) prior to implementing the proposed action 
or any alternative. [[Page 6005]] 
    (b) Environmental impact statements will be processed from 
inception (publication of the notice of intent) to completion 
(publication of a final environmental impact statement or a supplement) 
according to the Council on Environmental Quality implementing 
regulations.
    (c) For rulemaking or adjudicatory proceedings, relevant 
environmental documents, comments, and responses will be a part of the 
administrative record.
    (d) For all APHIS activity that is subject to the NEPA process, 
relevant environmental documents, comments, and responses will 
accompany proposals through the review process.
    (e) The APHIS decisionmaker will consider the alternatives 
discussed in environmental documents in reaching a determination on the 
merits of proposed actions.
    (f) APHIS will implement mitigation and other conditions 
established in environmental documentation and committed to as part of 
the decisionmaking process.


Sec. 372.10  Supplementing environmental impact statements.

    Once a decision to supplement an environmental impact statement is 
made, a notice of intent will be published. The administrative record 
will thereafter be open. The supplemental document will then be 
processed in the same fashion (exclusive of scoping) as a draft and a 
final statement (unless alternative procedures are approved by CEQ) and 
will become part of the administrative record.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of January 1995.
Terry L. Medley,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 95-2450 Filed 1-31-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-M