National Environmental Policy Act

On February 25, 2025, CEQ issued an interim final rule rescinding their regulations in response to Executive Order (E.O.) 14154, Unleashing American Energy.

CEQ's interim final rule (IFR) rescinded its NEPA implementing regulations, including 40 CFR parts 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, and 1508. The effective date of CEQ's interim rule was April 11, 2025. The background of CEQ's regulations, recent litigation, and relevant executive orders leading up to their February 25, 2025, IFR support the rationale underlying this final rule. CEQ published a final rule on January 8, 2026, affirming their IFR.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this final rule to affirm its IFR that revised, moved and republished, or removed portions of USDA's existing regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, as amended by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA), as well as add new portions to the USDA NEPA implementing regulations. USDA issued the IFR for three independent reasons, and those reasons remain valid.

First, CEQ's regulations were repealed effective April 11, 2025; see Removal of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations, 90 FR 10610 (Feb. 25, 2025). USDA and its agencies' regulations were promulgated as a “supplement” that “incorporates and adopts” the CEQ's NEPA regulations, see 7 CFR 1b.1(a). However, the CEQ regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508) no longer provided a valid foundation for USDA NEPA regulations.

Second, Congress recently amended NEPA in significant part, in the FRA, Public Law 118-5, signed on June 3, 2023, in which Congress added substantial detail and direction in Title I of NEPA regarding procedural issues that CEQ and individual acting agencies had previously addressed in their own procedures. USDA recognized the need to update its regulations considering these significant legislative changes. Since USDA's regulations were originally designed as a supplement to CEQ's NEPA regulations, USDA had been awaiting CEQ action before revising its regulations, consistent with CEQ direction. See 40 CFR 1507.3(b) (2024); see also 86 FR 34154 (June 29, 2021). However, with CEQ's regulations rescinded, and with USDA's NEPA implementing regulations then unmodified more than two years after this significant legislative overhaul, it was exigent that USDA move quickly to conform its regulations to the statute as amended.

And third, the U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a landmark decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, 145 S. Ct. 1497 (2025), in which it decried the “transform[ation]” of NEPA from its roots as “a modest procedural requirement,” into a significant “substantive roadblock” that “paralyze[s]” “agency decision-making”. Id. at 1507, 1513 (quotations omitted). The Supreme Court explained that part of that problem had been caused by decisions of lower courts, which it rejected, issuing a “course correction” mandating that courts give “substantial deference” to reasonable agency conclusions underlying its NEPA process. Id. at 1513-14. But the Court also acknowledged, and through its course correction sought to address, the effect on “litigation-averse agencies” which, in light of judicial “micromanage[ment],” had been “tak[ing] ever more time and [ ] prepar[ing] ever longer EISs [environmental impact statements] for future projects”. Id. at 1513. USDA incorporated this case's holdings into these regulations, availing itself of the latest information and guidance from the Court for its future NEPA application.

For these reasons USDA published an IFR to revise, move and republish, or remove portions of the USDA NEPA implementing regulations, as well as add new portions, given the CEQ NEPA regulations no longer provide a foundation for USDA NEPA regulations and leave the Department without necessary interpretation of, and implementing regulations for, NEPA (90 FR 29632 (July 3, 2025)). In the IFR preamble, USDA addressed how NEPA is a vital part of Federal agency planning and decision-making, and explained that USDA agencies need clear standards and guidelines as soon as possible to conduct the work of providing critical services and funds to Americans, as directed by Congress. USDA is affirming the final rule for these same reasons.

In publishing the IFR, USDA found that notice and comment was not required because the rule was interpretive or a rule of agency procedure or practice under 5 U.S.C 553(b)(A) and that, to the extent prior notice and solicitation of public comment would otherwise be required or this action could not immediately take effect, the need to expeditiously replace its existing rules satisfied the “good cause” exceptions in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d). The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes agencies to issue regulations without notice and public comment when an agency finds, for good cause, that notice

and comment is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), and to make the rule effective immediately for good cause. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). USDA's prior rules were promulgated as a “supplement[ ]” to the CEQ's NEPA regulations, and USDA also “adopt[ed]” the CEQ's regulations by incorporation. Following the rescission of CEQ's regulations, USDA's current rules were left to supplement a NEPA framework that no longer exists.

That being so, rescinding the old regulations immediately without replacing them would have created a vacuum that would inflict immense uncertainty on agencies and regulated parties and potentially grind all projects under USDA's purview to a halt. This could have had significant economic effects on USDA's customers due to delays in approvals or investing in projects that could be subject to legal challenges from not having clear uniform NEPA standards, which could have also been delayed. Therefore, pairing the rescission with a new structure immediately was absolutely critical. Because of this need for speed and certainty, notice-and-comment was, to the extent it was otherwise required at all, impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

For the same reasons stated in the present section, above, USDA found that “good cause” existed under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay of the effective date that would otherwise be required. The IFR was accordingly effective immediately. USDA voluntarily took comments on the IFR. USDA requested and encouraged public comments on the IFR with the rationale that comments may inform USDA's decision making during this time of substantial regulatory change.

Several commenters stated that the IFR is subject to the APA, which they allege requires public notice and comment when issuing, amending, or rescinding a rule through informal rulemaking processes unless one of two exceptions applies. These commenters disagreed with USDA's determination that the IFR is procedural or interpretive in nature, and that USDA had good cause that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. These commenters deemed the voluntary 30-day comment period insufficient and requested that the comment period for the IFR be extended given the amount of content to review for not only the USDA IFR, but for those IFRs related to NEPA implementing regulations and procedures published by other departments/agencies at the same time. Other commenters agreed with USDA's good cause rationale regarding the comment period and encouraged USDA to publish a final rule as soon as possible.

As described in the IFR preamble, USDA maintains that notice and comment was not required because the rulemaking fell within various exceptions to the notice-and-comment requirement. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b). The APA did not require USDA to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking and consider public comments before the effective date of the rule because three separate exceptions to the APA's general requirement apply here: (1) the USDA departmental and agency-specific NEPA regulations were procedural only and did not dictate or preclude any specific actions that could be taken; rather, the legacy USDA departmental and agency-specific NEPA regulations prescribed processes for USDA and agencies to follow when complying with NEPA; (2) the legacy USDA departmental and agency-specific NEPA regulations merely provided an interpretation of a statute rather than making discretionary policy choices establishing enforceable rights or obligations for regulated parties; and (3) good cause exists to forgo notice-and-comment procedures and put the rule into immediate effect because the legacy USDA departmental and agency-specific NEPA regulations were expressly promulgated to supplement CEQ's NEPA regulations.

Following the rescission of CEQ's NEPA regulations, USDA and its agencies were left with vestigial NEPA regulations that “supplemented” a CEQ regulatory regime that no longer existed, which was not tenable and could have caused significant economic harm to USDA's customers. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)-(B). Portions of this rulemaking also include general statements of policy. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Regardless, USDA did provide notice and an opportunity to comment on the IFR for a 30-day period. USDA determined that 30 days was adequate because the scope of the IFR was limited to revising or rescinding previously promulgated USDA departmental and agency-specific NEPA regulations. Moreover, USDA monitored and posted the comments as they were received. The public comment period concluded on August 4, 2025.

Furthermore, USDA's IFR contained all the elements of a notice of proposed rulemaking as required by the APA. 5 U.S.C. 553(b); see also Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter & Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U.S. 657 (2020). USDA explained its position with sufficient detail to put the public on notice that it was revising the departmental NEPA regulations and rescinding the seven agency-specific regulations and provided its rationale along with an opportunity to comment. The public understood the action USDA was taking and took advantage of the opportunity to comment.

USDA issued two corrections during the comment period. The first was to change the erroneous citation to 7 CFR 2407 to the correct citation of 7 CFR 3407 and correct numbering of items listed in Sec. 1b.4 by redesignating the second paragraph (c)(30)(xiv) as (c)(30)(xix) (90 FR 33871 (July 18, 2025)). The second was to clarify the comment deadline ending date as August 4, 2025, rather than July 30, 2025 (90 FR 34165 (July 21, 2025)).

USDA received approximately 6,075 written submissions in response to the IFR published on July 3, 2025. The overwhelming majority of the comments (approximately 5,020) were identical campaign form letters sent in response to organized initiatives. USDA received approximately 1,055 unique public comments, though many of these were also very similar in form with only minor content added to make them unique. The volume and substantive content of the comments received indicates that the public had an adequate opportunity to comment. Thus, while USDA maintains for the reasons noted above that its IFR is subject to the exceptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b), this final rule represents the culmination of a process functionally equivalent to a traditional notice-and-comment rulemaking regardless of the initial procedural basis for the IFR.

Since publishing the IFR, USDA has identified opportunities to clarify content included in this final rule to make implementation of the revised regulations more efficient, effective, and consistent with other departments or agencies where applicable.

USDA is issuing this final rule to primarily respond to public comments on the IFR, as well as explain clarifications provided in response to feedback provided by reviewers and implementers of the revised regulations. This final rule explains that USDA is reaffirming its decision to rescind seven agency-specific NEPA regulations and revise the departmental NEPA regulations, subject to the additional revisions made by this final rule. This final rule therefore supersedes the IFR.

USDA considered and is responding to substantive public comments in this final rule. Summaries of and responses to these comments are provided in the pertinent sections of this final rule preamble. Both general support and

opposition to the IFR were expressed by unique comments received. None of the comments received altered USDA's conclusion that there is a need to revise, move and republish, or remove portions of the USDA NEPA implementing regulations, as well as add new portions, given the CEQ NEPA regulations no longer provide a foundation for USDA NEPA regulations and leave the Department without necessary interpretation of, and implementing regulations for, NEPA. Comments did, however, inform opportunities to change some content between the interim and final rule as described in the sections pertinent to the comment topic.

Several commenters on the IFR expressed support for the revised regulations and USDA's approach to fulfilling NEPA's statutory requirements while allowing for efficient, timely, and effective NEPA reviews and program implementation. Many of these commenters described their experience trying to move important infrastructure, energy, timber, and other projects through the NEPA process over the last couple of decades. They expressed frustration with the overly burdensome processes and analysis requirements that were created in response to evolving case law and the frequent revisions to the now- rescinded CEQ NEPA regulations, all of which have created confusion and unnecessary delays. For these reasons, they expressed support for a course-correction on NEPA compliance by aligning the USDA regulations with the intent of the Act in a way that meaningfully evaluates environmental effects to inform the decision-making process while still expanding the various services and resources that USDA programs provide across the nation.

Other numerous commenters on the IFR expressed lack of support for the revised regulations and USDA's approach to fulfilling NEPA's statutory requirements. These commenters see the revised regulations as failing to facilitate informed agency decisions that require a full evaluation of environmental impacts and not promoting a transparent process for informing and engaging the public. Many of these commenters described their positive and results-oriented experience engaging with federal agencies to inform the decision-making process and ensure sufficient environmental effects analysis was completed. They expressed frustration with the rescission of the CEQ NEPA regulations and the confusion and inconsistency that will be created by each federal department and/or agency issuing their own version of NEPA implementing regulations and/or procedures. For these reasons, they encouraged a version of USDA regulations that more readily mirror the processes and procedures that were described in the now-rescinded CEQ NEPA regulations.

USDA acknowledges both these supportive and non-supportive comments.

In 1974, the Secretary of Agriculture issued Memorandum No. 1695, Supplement 4 (Revised), to establish guidelines for the preparation of environmental impact statements and compliance with other procedural requirements of Sec. 102(2) of the NEPA. On May 1, 1979 (44 FR 25606) and July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44802), the Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposed and finalized rules setting forth policies and procedures for compliance with NEPA and CEQ's implementing regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508). On occasion, the Department has further amended its NEPA regulations to refine and adjust to better meet its organizational and program needs. See 46 FR 47747, 48 FR 11403, 60 FR 66479, 76 FR 4801.

Prior to the IFR, USDA promulgated the most recent iteration of its NEPA regulations in 1995 (60 FR 66479, Dec. 22, 1995), to “[supplement] the regulations for the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for which regulations were published by the CEQ in 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508 [and incorporate and adopt] those regulations”. Subtitle A, part 1b.1 of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (1995) (hereinafter 7 CFR 1b). USDA NEPA regulations were dependent upon provisions in the 1978 CEQ regulations. Similarly, individual USDA agency NEPA regulations expressly state that their “purpose” is to supplement and implement CEQ regulations:

(1) Agricultural Research Service, subtitle B, chapter V, part 520, of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (hereinafter 7 CFR 520): “These procedures incorporate and supplement, and are not a substitute for, CEQ regulations under 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, and Department of Agriculture NEPA Policies and Procedures under 7 CFR part 1b.” (7 CFR 520.1 (1986));

(2) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, subtitle B, chapter III, part 372, of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (hereinafter 7 CFR 372): “These procedures implement section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by assuring early and adequate consideration of environmental factors in Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service planning and decision-making and by promoting the effective, efficient integration of all relevant environmental requirements under NEPA. The goal of timely, relevant environmental analysis will be secured principally by adhering to NEPA 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).” (7 CFR 372.1 (2018));

(3) Farm Service Agency, subtitle B, chapter VII, subchapter G, part 799, of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (hereinafter 7 CFR 799): “This part: . . . (2) Establishes FSA procedures to implement the (i) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 through 4370); (ii) CEQ regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1518); and (iii) USDA NEPA regulations (Sec. Sec. 1b.1 through 1b.4 of this title).” (7 CFR 799.1 (2016));

(4) National Institute of Food and Agriculture, subtitle B, chapter XXXIV, part 3407, of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (hereinafter 7 CFR 3407): “The purpose of this regulation is to supplement the regulations for implementation of NEPA established by the CEQ and codified at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, as adopted by USDA in 7 CFR part 1b.” (7 CFR 3407.1 (1991));

(5) Natural Resources Conservation Service, subtitle B, chapter VI, subchapter F, part 650, of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (hereinafter 7 CFR 650): “The procedures included in this rule supplement CEQ's NEPA regulations, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508. CEQ regulations that need no additional elaboration to address NRCS- assisted actions are not repeated in this rule, although the regulations are cited as references. The procedures include some overlap with CEQ regulations. This is done to highlight items of importance for NRCS. This does not supersede the existing body of NEPA regulations.” (7 CFR 650.1 (1979));

(6) Rural Development, subtitle B, chapter XVIII, subchapter H, part 1970, of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (hereinafter 7 CFR 1970): “This part also supplements the CEQ regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA, 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508. To the extent appropriate, the agency will take into account CEQ guidance and

memoranda.” (7 CFR 1970.1 (2016)); and

(7) U.S. Forest Service, chapter II, part 220, of title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (hereinafter 36 CFR 220): “This part establishes Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) procedures for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and the CEQ regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508) . . . This part supplements and does not lessen the applicability of the CEQ regulations and is to be used in conjunction with the CEQ regulations and USDA regulations at 7 CFR part 1b.” (36 CFR 220.1 (2008)).

Departmental and agency NEPA regulations have been largely organizational and technical, with limited substantive content. The Department's past judgment has been that effective NEPA implementation could be achieved by reliance on a policy statement in 7 CFR 1b.2 and individual USDA agency NEPA regulations for tailored technical procedures. For the reasons described above, the Department now believes that a change is necessary to advance the Department's mission in an efficient, flexible, and innovative manner while ensuring the conservation and protection of the environment.

USDA has analyzed how best to respond to CEQ's interim and final rule and fulfill NEPA's statutory requirements while allowing for efficient program implementation. In the Department's judgment, given that NEPA is a procedural statute that simply directs consideration of reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts, it is sufficient for the Department to issue a set of uniform procedures, and it is not necessary for each subcomponent with NEPA responsibilities across the Department to supplement the Department NEPA regulations. Therefore, USDA is correcting course and right-sizing its NEPA regulations consistent with applicable law.