Report of the Attorney General to the Safe Growth Cabinet Council Page: 50 of 68
Pages: (69 p)View a full description of this report.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
10028
Federal Reciter / Vol, 46, No, 55 / Monday, March 23, 1981 / Rulee and Regulations
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL
OUAUTV
40 CFR Part* 1500, 1M1, 19Q2, 1505, *
1504, 1905, 1908, 1*07, and 1908
Forty Mott Asked Question*
Concerning CEQ't National
Environmental Policy Act Regulations
March 17, INI,
AOCMCR Council on Environmental
Quality, Executive Office of the
President.
ACnotc Information Only; Publication of
Memorandum to Agenda* Containing
Answers to 40 Moat Aaked Queatlona cm
NEPA Regulations._
SUWUANv: The Council on
Environmental Quality, aa part of Its
oversight of Implementation of the
National Environmental Policy Act, held
meeting* In the tan Federal region* with
Federal, State, and local officials to
disease administration of tha
implementing regulations. Tha forty
moit asked question! were compiled In
a memorandum to agendee for tha
Information of relevant offidals, la
order efficiently to respond to public
inquiries this memorandum la reprinted
In this Issue of the Federal Regis tar.
PON PUNTWSR MPOMUnOM CONTACT.
Nicholas C. Yost Central Counsel,
Council on Environmental Quality, 722
Jackson Place NW- Washington, D.C,
JCOWi 202-39S-97M.
March 16, 19B1.
Memorandum for Federal NEPA
liaisons, Federal, State, and Local
Offidals and Other Parsons Involved la
tha NEPA Proona
Subject: Questions and Answers About
the NEPA Regulations
During June and July of 1980 the
Council on Environmental Quality, with
tha assistance end cooperation of EPA's
, E1S Coordinators from the ten EPA
regions, held one-day meetings with
federal, elate and local officials in the
ten EPA regional offices around the
country, In addition, oo July 10,1900,
CEQ conducted a similar meeting for tha
Washington, D.C NEPA liaisons and
persona involved In the NEPA process
At these ineetingi CEQ discussed (a) the
reiulls of its 1980 review of Draft ElSa
Issued since the July 3a 1979 effective
date uf the NEPA regulation*, (b) agency
compliance with the Record of Decision
requirements in Section 1505 of the
NEPA regulations, and (c) CEQ'a
preliminary findings on how (he scoping
process is working. Parlicipinti at these
meetings received copies of materials
prepared by CEQ summarizing Its
oversight end findings.
These meetings elso provided NEPA
Utlsons and other participants with an
opportunity to ask questions about
NEPA and the practical application of
the NEPA regulation*, A number of
these questions were answered by CEQ
representstivae at tha regional meetings.
In response to the many requests from
tha agencies and other participants^
CEQ ns* compiled forty of the most
Important or most frequently asked
questions and their answers and
reduced them to writing. Tha answer*
were prepared by the General Counsel
of CEQ in consultation with the Office
of Federal Activities of EPA. lies#
answer*, of course, do not impose any
additional requirements beyond those of
tha NEPA regulations. This document
does not represent new guidance under
tha NEPA regulations, but rather make#
generally available to concerned
agencies and private Individuals tha
answers which CEQ has already given
at tha 1900 regional meetings. The -
answers also reflect the advice which
the Council has given over the past two
years to aid agency staff and
consultants In their day-to-day
application of NI7A and tha regulations,
CEQ has also received numerous
inquiries regarding tha scoping process,
CEQ hopes to issue written guidance on
scoping later this year on the baaia of Its
special study of scoping, which M
nearing completion,
Nkfcchw C Yoet,
Centra} CknamL
Index
1. Range of Alternatives
2. Alter ativse Outside the Capability
of Applicant or Jurisdiction of Agency
1 No-Action Alternative
♦. Agency's Preferred Alternative
9. Proposed Action v. Preferred
Alternative
ft. Environmentally Preferable
Alternative
7. Difference Between Sections of E1S
on Alternatives and Environmental
Consequencaa
& Early Application of NEPA
S. Applicant Who Needs Other
Permits
10. Limitations on Action During 30-
Day Review Period for Pinal EIS
11. Limitation* on Actions by an
Applicant During EIS Procaee
12. Effective Date and Enforceability
of the Regulations
13. Us* of Scoping Before Notice of
Intent to Prepare EIS
14. Right* and Responsibilities of
Lead and Cooperating Agencies
15. Commenting Responsibilities of
EPA
1ft. Third Party Contract*
17, Disclosure Statement to Avoid
Conflict of Interest
1ft. Uncertainties About Indirect
Effects of A Proposal
19, Mitigation Meeiurea
20, Worst Can Analysis
21, Combining Environmental and
Planning Document*
22, State and Federal Agencies as
Joint Lead Agencies
23, Conflicts of Federal Proposal With
Land Use Plans, on Policies and
Control*
24, Environmental Imped Statement*
on Policies, Plans or Programs
25, Appendices and incorporation by
Reference
28. Index and Keyword Index In ElSe
27. Lift of Preparer*
28. Advance or Xerox Copies of EIS
28. Responses to Comments
30. Adoption of ElSa
31. Application of Regulations to
Independent Regulatory Agencies
32. Supplements To Old EIS*
S3. Referrals
34. Records of Decielon
38. Tims Required for the NEPA
Process
38. Environmental Assessments (EA)
37. Findings of No Significant Impact
(FONSi]
38. Public Availability of EA* v.
FONSI*
39. Mitigation Measures Imposed In
EAs and FONSI*
4a Propriety oflssuing EA When
Mitigation Reduces Impacts
Questions and Answers About the
NEPA Regulations (Ifttl)
Is. Q. What is meant by "range of
alternative*” at referred to in Sec
1505.1(e)? 1
A. The phrase "range of alternative*”
refers to the alternative* dltcuised in
environmental documents. It Includes all
reasonable alternative*, which must be
rigorously explored and objectively
evaluated, as well ci those other
alternative*, which ere eliminated from
detailed etudy with e brief dlecusilon of
the reasons for sliminaling them.
Section 1502.14. A decisionmaker must
not comidar alternative* beyond the
range of alternatives dJscusied in tha
relevant environmental documents.
Moreover, a decisionmaker rnuat, in fact
consider ell the alternative* diecuiied in
an EIS. Section 1505.1(e).
lb. Q. How many alternative* have to
be discussed when there I* an Infinite
number of possible alternatives?
1 Reformat thmu*hovt the document ere to the
Council on Environment*! Quality > Refutation* fm
Implemenlm* The Procedure! Provliione ol the
Nation*! Environmental Policy Set. *0 CFR Pert*
1500-IMS
C-6
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
Cody, W.J. Report of the Attorney General to the Safe Growth Cabinet Council, report, September 23, 1985; United States. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1094074/m1/50/: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.