National Environmental Policy Act

USDA's revised NEPA implementing regulations, as adopted via this final rule, are a more faithful implementation of the statute as amended in 2023 than its previous version of regulations. These regulations implement major structural features of the 2023 amendments to NEPA, such as deadlines and page limits for environmental assessments (EAs) and environmental impact statements (EISs), as directed at NEPA Sec. 107 (e) and (g), 42 U.S.C. 4336a(e) and (g), and provide that USDA will complete preparation of these documents within the maximum length and on the timeline that Congress intends. They incorporate Congress's definition of “major Federal action” and the exclusions thereto, as codified at NEPA Sec. 111(10), 42 U.S.C. 4336e(10). They incorporate Congress's mandated procedure for determining the appropriate level of review under NEPA, as codified in NEPA Sec. 106, 42 U.S.C. 4336. They incorporate Congress's direction with respect to establishment, adoption, and application of categorical exclusions (CEs), as codified at NEPA Sec. 109 (42 U.S.C. 4336c) and Sec. 111(1), 42 U.S.C. 4336e(1). They provide procedures governing project-sponsor-prepared EAs and EISs, as directed at NEPA Sec. 107(f), 42 U.S.C. 4336a(f). They incorporate Congress's revision to the requirements for what an agency must address in its EISs, as codified at NEPA Sec. 102(2)(C), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), and Congress's requirement that public notice and solicitation of comment be provided when issuing a notice of intent to prepare an EIS, as directed at NEPA Sec. 107(c), 42 U.S.C. 4336a(c). All of these are crucial features of Congress's policy design and its purpose in the 2023 amendments that NEPA review be more efficient and certain.

Moreover, the revised regulations respond to the President's directive in E.O. 14154, Unleashing American Energy, 90 FR 8,353, and E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6, 2025), to ensure that regulatory requirements are grounded in applicable law and to alleviate any unnecessary regulatory burdens. The revised regulations also reflect the Supreme Court's recent and unequivocal statement that NEPA is a purely procedural statute. The Department is conscious of the Supreme Court's admonition that NEPA review has grown out of all proportion to its origins of a “modest procedural requirement,” creating, “ `under the guise' of just a little more process,” “[d]elay upon delay, so much so that the process seems to `borde[r] on the Kafkaesque.' ” Seven County, 145 S. Ct. at 1513-1514. These regulations, therefore, are intended to align NEPA with its Congressionally mandated dimensions, reflecting the guidance given also by the President and the Supreme Court, and making review under it faster, more flexible, and more efficient and effective.

Several commenters on the IFR disagree with USDA's approach in the revised regulations and allege it is not consistent with E.O. 14154, nor is it justified by the executive order which some state is contrary to the statutory direction contained in NEPA. Several other commenters support USDA's approach and expressed their appreciation for USDA's compliance with the E.O. 14154 and attempt to more closely align the departmental NEPA regulations with the statutory intent of NEPA as originally intended and amended.

E.O. 14154 directs all agencies to prioritize efficiency and certainty and avoid and minimize delays and ambiguity in the permitting process. USDA's revised departmental regulations guide compliance with NEPA that will better advance the priorities articulated in E.O. 14154. Consolidating NEPA procedures under one department-wide regulation provides consistency, making USDA's NEPA process more transparent, efficient, and certain for both employees and sponsors, applicants, or other third parties who may work on efforts that span more than one USDA subcomponent.

The rescission of the CEQ NEPA regulations, along with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, 145 S. Ct. 1497 (2025), provided additional reason for USDA to take a hard look at the NEPA regulatory structure across the Department. With the broader NEPA regulatory environment upended with the rescission of the CEQ regulations, USDA saw this as an opportunity to make necessary course corrections to the department's NEPA regulatory structure and move away from the overcomplicated and burdensome NEPA regulatory framework that evolved over the decades due to promulgation of agency-specific NEPA regulations that continued to layer process requirements on top of those already required by CEQ's NEPA regulations. While previous USDA NEPA regulations (to include agency-specific regulations) necessarily incorporated and adopted the CEQ regulations, CEQ's rescission of their NEPA regulations means departments and agencies are no longer entirely beholden to interpreting and applying NEPA as laid out in any version of 40 CFR parts 1500-1508.

USDA acknowledges that CEQ's regulations previously provided a framework for NEPA compliance and informed agency practices. However, as CEQ explained in its final rule affirming the removal of its regulations, CEQ lacks

independent statutory authority to maintain NEPA implementing regulations that bind agencies in the absence of an executive order delegating rulemaking authority to CEQ. 91 FR at 622-23; see also Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy, 90 FR 8,353. Accordingly, departments and agencies may now exercise discretion to adopt procedures consistent with NEPA and executive policies. Indeed, as explained above, because USDA's prior NEPA implementing procedures were expressly designed as a supplement to CEQ's rescinded regulations, CEQ's recission necessitated that USDA adopt new procedures designed to independently implement NEPA.

To this end, USDA is not carrying forward process requirements, which may have been codified in now rescinded regulations, where these do not prioritize efficiency and certainty and do not avoid and minimize delays and ambiguity in the permitting process. Additionally, USDA took into consideration that USDA subcomponents and responsible officials have multiple obligations to consider, such as analyzing the most important resource impacts within statutorily mandated page limits and deadlines, being responsive to varying levels of public interest, managing fluctuations in budget and workforce capacity, and accounting for other situations that require process flexibility. Therefore, in revising the departmental NEPA regulations, USDA consulted with CEQ under NEPA section 102(2)(B), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(B) and placed emphasis on: (1) more closely aligning the procedures and processes outlined in the revised 7 CFR 1b regulations with statutory requirements; and (2) promoting responsible official discretion to determine whether to conduct certain processes based on circumstances unique to the USDA subcomponent and the proposal or project at hand.

Furthermore, USDA is currently coordinating with CEQ on the Permitting Technology Action Plan that responds to the Presidential Memorandum of April 15, 2025 on Updating Permitting Technology for the 21st Century. This permitting technology update is departmental in scope. Logistically and fiscally, it is more efficient and effective to have the entire Department operating under one set of NEPA regulations as part of information technology modernization, improved customer service delivery, and establishment of more predictable and consistent permitting and environmental review processes--rather than trying to accommodate and design around seven or more ways of conducting NEPA within the same Department, as would be the case with the seven agency- specific NEPA regulations that had been promulgated within USDA.

Some commenters noted that USDA's IFR was not consistent with regulations or procedures published in other department and agency IFRs. USDA recognizes that its approach to implementing NEPA may differ from other department and agency approaches to implementing NEPA. Through this final rulemaking, USDA is revising and affirming NEPA implementing procedures that fit its programs and authorities while maintaining government-wide consistency to the extent possible. As previously discussed, following the removal of CEQ's NEPA regulations, USDA has flexibility to determine department and agency-specific NEPA procedures to modernize, simplify, and accelerate NEPA reviews and support responsible development.

Furthermore, USDA notes that NEPA requires departments/agencies to consult with CEQ when developing NEPA procedures. See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(B). NEPA does not require departments and agencies to coordinate with one another to ensure identicality between their respective NEPA procedures, let alone between the means by which each department/agency issues those procedures. Department and agency statutory authorities and subject-matter expertise and capacity differ greatly, and variance on these matters is to be expected. Indeed, department and agency NEPA regulations and procedures were not homogenous or identical during the era in which CEQ maintained overarching implementing regulations, as demonstrated by seven non- identical, agency-specific NEPA regulations that had been promulgated within USDA, and there is no requirement or reasonable expectation that they should now be consistent with other departments and agencies when the CEQ regulations have been vacated and rescinded.

Several commenters on the IFR allege that the revised regulations require NEPA compliance and an EIS, or EA at a minimum, needs to be completed.

The establishment of NEPA implementing regulations does not require a NEPA analysis. See Heartwood v. U.S. Forest Serv., 230 F.3d 947, 954- 55 (7th Cir. 2000) (finding that neither NEPA or the CEQ regulations required the Forest Service to conduct an EA or an EIS prior to the promulgation of its procedures creating a CE).

Several commenters on the IFR allege the changes made to the departmental NEPA regulations, as well as rescission of some agency NEPA regulations, requires programmatic consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Neither the revised USDA NEPA implementing regulations themselves nor the rescission of agency-specific NEPA regulations would result in adverse impacts on endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat. NEPA and USDA's implementing regulations provide procedures to ensure that agencies account for the environmental impacts of their actions. The commenter's alleged harm to species is speculative. Procedural regulations do not create proximate cause of any potential harm or take, which would result from future agency actions rather than USDA's procedural structure. Such future actions would be subject to the ESA's consultation requirements. Therefore, Section 7 of the ESA does not apply to this rulemaking.

USDA has revised its NEPA implementing regulations to conform to the 2023 statutory amendments, to respond to President Trump's direction in E.O. 14154 to, “[c]onsistent with applicable law, prioritize efficiency and certainty over any other objectives, including those of activist groups, that do not align with the policy goals set forth in section 2 of [that] order or that could otherwise add delays and ambiguity to the permitting process,” (E.O. 14154, Section 5(c)) and to address the pathologies of the NEPA process and NEPA litigation as identified by the Supreme Court. Where USDA has retained an aspect of its preexisting NEPA implementing regulations, it is because that aspect is compatible with these guiding principles; where USDA has revised or removed an aspect, it is because that aspect is not so compatible. 2. General Overview of Changes

USDA is modifying the department-level NEPA regulations found at 7 CFR 1b to provide a valid foundation from which USDA mission areas, agencies, and staff offices (or subcomponents) implement NEPA. 7 CFR 1b primarily retains and moves the placement of the following information currently contained in 7 CFR 1b and the individual agency NEPA regulations below: CEs, which includes a list of USDA agencies and offices excluded from completing an EA or EIS; and emergency action provisions. Some additional sections from agency-specific

regulations are also retained, as described in the agency-specific regulation discussions listed below. Except for the information to be moved to the revised 7 CFR 1b regulation, the following individual agency NEPA regulations are rescinded in full:

--Agricultural Research Service: 7 CFR 520; --Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: 7 CFR 372; --Farm Service Agency: 7 CFR 799; --National Institute of Food and Agriculture: 7 CFR 3407; --Natural Resources Conservation Service: 7 CFR 650; --Rural Development: 7 CFR 1970; and --U.S. Forest Service: 36 CFR 220.

The following summaries capture additional specific changes that are occurring for each affected USDA regulation. For all regulations, references to CEQ's rescinded NEPA implementing regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508) were removed. Where USDA agency NEPA regulations cited portions of the agency regulation that are now being rescinded, those references were also removed and revised to refer to the applicable section in the revised 7 CFR 1b regulation. Where USDA agency NEPA regulations used agency-developed terms, such as those associated with agency-developed forms and other document types, these have been generalized to allow for the application of consistent Department implementing regulations for NEPA. As discussed previously, USDA agencies will be able to issue agency-specific procedures through technical and program guidance that aligns with NEPA and the Department regulations at 7 CFR 1b. 3. USDA Departmental NEPA Regulations (7 CFR 1b)

USDA is revising the department-level NEPA regulations at 7 CFR 1b to provide necessary guidance and direction for implementing NEPA in the absence of the CEQ NEPA implementing regulations, as rescinded effective April 11, 2025.

With the CEQ NEPA implementing regulations having been rescinded, USDA identified opportunities to reduce redundant and duplicative regulation revision efforts for agency-specific NEPA regulations and instead establish necessary direction at the department-level. This allows the Department to establish consistency across the subcomponents, where desired, in how NEPA is implemented.

Some commenters on the IFR supported USDA's decision to issue revised regulations alone rather than issuing regulations and procedures/technical guidance together or procedures/technical guidance alone. Commenters view this regulations-only approach as establishing more transparency, stability, and durability of USDA's intended approach and commitment to implementing NEPA over the long-term, whereas procedures/technical guidance can be updated at any time with little to no public notice.

USDA is adopting the regulations-only approach in this final rule. It finds that a department-wide regulation offers consistency, stability, transparency, and clear expectations for USDA subcomponents and their stakeholders.

The following provides a summary of what is included or revised in each section of the department-level NEPA regulations, as well as the rationale for the changes.

7 CFR 1b.1--Purpose: Previous paragraphs (a) and (b) in this section are removed. Paragraphs (a) through (d) are added.

In this section, USDA removes reference to CEQ NEPA regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508 and adds clarification of the purpose of the revised departmental NEPA regulations. It codifies the Department's determination that this rule is an interpretative rule. This section specifies the mission areas, agencies, and staff offices (hereinafter USDA subcomponents or subcomponent) the part applies to.

In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.1(c) is revised to remove “the U.S. Department of Agriculture” and replace it with the acronym USDA. This aligns with the use of USDA throughout the regulations.

No changes have been made to 7 CFR 1b.1(a), (b), and (d) relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.2--Policy: Previous paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) in this section are removed. Paragraphs (a) through (i) are added and this section is now revised to read as indicated in 7 CFR 1b.2. In this section, USDA outlines the Department's policy on complying with NEPA and specifies roles and responsibilities at the Department for managing NEPA compliance.

7 CFR 1b.2(a) outlines USDA's intent to comply with NEPA. In the final rule, the phrase “as amended by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023” is revised to “as amended”. NEPA was amended again by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 one day after the IFR published. Additional legislation could be proposed and passed that would amend NEPA again; therefore, USDA finds it appropriate to keep the language regarding amendments to NEPA general instead of citing specific Acts to circumvent the need for administrative updates to the regulations in the future.

7 CFR 1b.2(b) clarifies how USDA will manage NEPA compliance. The final rule changes the USDA senior agency official from the Under Secretary of Natural Resources and Environment to the Deputy Secretary of USDA, as referenced in 7 CFR 1b.2(a) and (b) (to include applicable paragraphs). As all agency or mission area NEPA regulations have been rescinded and USDA is operating under one department-wide regulation, it was determined the senior agency official should be a level higher than a mission area Under Secretary as the senior agency official holds responsibility for ensuring overall Department compliance with NEPA. (All references to the “senior agency official” throughout the regulations were revised to reflect this change and any references to the Under Secretary of Natural Resources and Environment were removed throughout the regulations.) This section provides clarification on the issuance of agency-specific NEPA guidance for processes and practices that address agency-specific laws and program efficiency. 7 CFR 1b.2(b)(2) is revised to refer to “any mission area”, rather than “another mission area”. This change was necessitated because of the change in the senior agency official (now the Deputy Secretary, not a mission area Under Secretary).

Some commenters on the IFR disagreed with the language in 7 CFR 1b.2(b)(2)(vi) that allows subcomponents to establish procedures for bonding provisions, alleging the language is ambiguous and questioning USDA's statutory authority for this provision. Commenters expressed concern that this provision could be misinterpreted as allowing bonding requirements on the public to participate in the NEPA process as it is not clear what parties this provision applies to. This provision is removed and the list in 7 CFR 1b.2(b)(2) renumbered to reflect this change.

7 CFR 1b.2(c) allows USDA subcomponents to establish subcomponent- specific NEPA guidance so long as the guidance avoids creating unnecessary process. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.2(d) adds requirements to submit to Congress on an annual basis a report that identifies any EA and EIS that such lead agency did not complete by the deadline described in NEPA Sec. 107(g), 42 U.S.C. 4336a(g), as amended in 2023, and provide an explanation for

failure to meet deadlines. This section specifies USDA roles and responsibilities for completing this report. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.2(e) adds the process for how USDA subcomponents will determine when NEPA does not apply. Consideration of whether the action is a major Federal action is added, in line with the definition of major Federal action in NEPA, as amended by the FRA. NEPA does not apply to “non-Federal actions”; therefore, under the terms of the statute, NEPA does not apply to actions with no or minimal Federal funding, or with no or minimal Federal involvement where a Federal agency cannot control the outcome of the proposal. A but-for causal relationship is insufficient to make an agency responsible for a particular action under NEPA. See Dept. of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 767 (2004). By the same token, minimal Federal funding or involvement, which may in a causal sense be a but-for cause of an action, does not by itself convert that action into a Federal action within the meaning of the language of the statute.

Several commenters on the IFR disagreed with the definition of “major Federal action” and proposed changes to the definition, while several other commenters supported the definition as it is defined in NEPA and encouraged USDA to accurately apply it to agency programs and actions, especially as it pertains to loans and loan guarantees. Some commenters disagreed with inclusion of the clause that states the “terms `major' and `Federal action' each have independent force” and alleged this inappropriately changes the definition of major Federal action as provided in NEPA. Some commenters proposed that USDA include a list in 7 CFR 1b that identifies actions that are not considered major Federal actions.

Some commenters on the IFR also disagreed with the consideration of “whether the proposal is an action for which another statute's requirements serve the function of the Federal agency's compliance with the Act” and suggested this was not appropriate to include as considerations for when NEPA applies and therefore should be removed.

The term “major Federal action” is statutorily defined in NEPA, as amended by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. 42 U.S.C. 4336e(10). USDA does not have the authority to change the definition. The clarification that the terms “major” and “Federal action” have independent force is to prompt consideration that an action may be Federal but not major, or major but not Federal. This does not change the definition of major Federal action but rather ensures it is accurately considered and applied. The definition of, and exclusions from, the NEPA term of art “major Federal action”, read holistically, support the view that the words “major” and “Federal” within that term of art do have independent force--e.g., “non-Federal actions” with “no or minimal” federal funding or involvement (i.e., actions that are not “Federal” in common-sense terms, and/or that are not “major” when viewed from the perspective of “how much” of the action is truly Federal), are not “major Federal actions”. Therefore, the clarification that the terms “major” and “Federal action” have independent force is in keeping with the text and structure of NEPA generally and the definition of “major Federal action” specifically.

USDA considered whether the regulations should specify those actions that are not considered major Federal actions; however, it was decided these determinations are best made on a case-by-case basis-- either at a program or project level--by USDA subcomponents so that the regulations do not have to be routinely revised to amend this list. As the regulations apply to multiple USDA subcomponents, it would be difficult to create a list that universally applies to all USDA subcomponents. 7 CFR 1b.2(e) clarifies that threshold determinations of whether NEPA applies may be made on a case-by-case or programmatic basis and record keeping of the justifications for these determinations is advisable. This includes determination of whether an action is a major Federal action.

With regards to consideration of whether the proposal is an action for which another statute's requirements serve the function of the Federal agency's compliance with the Act, USDA finds this “functional equivalent” provision is appropriate. Other laws, such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), may serve as a functional equivalent for NEPA. The functional equivalent of NEPA for CERCLA (Superfund) actions is the CERCLA Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS) process, which includes the Record of Decision. While NEPA requires the formal preparation of an EIS, the RI/FS process under CERCLA assesses a site's impacts and selects a remedy, embodying the intent of NEPA.

The Department is not proposing any change in its current application of the functional equivalent doctrine by codifying it. It is codifying the status quo by incorporating the functional equivalence doctrine into its regulations (7 CFR 1b.2(e)(6)). This is a longstanding doctrine from case law. See Mandelker, Daniel NEPA Law and Litig. 5:16 (2025). “Where federal regulatory action is circumscribed by extensive procedures, including public participation, for evaluating environmental issues and is taken by an agency with recognized expertise, formal adherence to the NEPA requirements is not required unless Congress has specifically so directed.” Id., quoting State of MD. v. Train, 415 F. Supp. 116, 122 (D. Md. 1976).

In the final rule, references to “USDA” in 7 CFR 1b.2(e) and applicable paragraphs are revised to “USDA subcomponent” to be consistent with terminology used throughout the revised regulations.

7 CFR 1b.2(f) adds the process for how USDA subcomponents will determine the level of NEPA that applies. Where some agency-specific NEPA regulations identified categories of actions generally requiring an EA or EIS, these sections have not been carried forward into 7 CFR 1b. NEPA does not require the identification of categories of actions other than those actions that are categorically excluded from documentation in an EA or EIS when a Federal agency has determined the actions normally do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of NEPA Sec. 102(2)(C), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), NEPA Sec. 111(1), 42 U.S.C. 4336e(1)). Because the determination of no significance was made during the process of establishing the CE, it is the consideration of whether an extraordinary circumstance exists that may preclude the use of the category (see 7 CFR 1b.3(f)). In determining whether a CE applies to a proposed action, and therefore does not require preparation of an EA or EIS, an agency should evaluate the action for extraordinary circumstances that indicate a normally excluded action is likely to have reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects. Determinations of whether to prepare an EA or EIS should be based on the anticipated degree of effect, in accordance with NEPA, not on the type of action. An EA shall be prepared when a Federal agency finds that a CE does not apply to an action and the action does not have a reasonably foreseeable significant impact on the quality of the human environment, or the significance of such effect is unknown (NEPA Sec. 106(b)(2) (42 U.S.C. 4336(b)(2); 7 CFR

1b.2(f)(2)(iv)(A)) and 1b.5(a)). An EIS shall be issued when a Federal agency finds that a CE does not apply and determines an action has a reasonably foreseeable significant impact on the quality of the human environment (NEPA Sec. 106(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 4336(b)(1); 7 CFR 1b.2(f)(2)(iv)(B) and 1b.7(a)). This policy accurately reflects the statutory requirements of NEPA for determining the appropriate level of NEPA review (CE, EA, or EIS). In the final rule, the references to “USDA” in 1b.2(e), (e)(1), and (e)(4) were revised to read as “a USDA subcomponent”.

This section also includes the new considerations for whether the effects of the proposed action (or alternatives) are significant (7 CFR 1b.2(f)(3)). When defining considerations for significance, USDA is using the concept of “affected environment” and a list of types of effects that include both short- and long-term effects, both beneficial and adverse effects, effects on public health and safety, economic effects, and effects on the quality of life of the American people.

Some commenters on the IFR disagreed with USDA's considerations for significance. Some would like to see the considerations of significance as they existed in the CEQ NEPA regulations prior to the 2020 revision (context and intensity framing). Others did not support the inclusion of considerations for social and economic factors as part of the affected environment and degree of effects, alleging this will expand-- not streamline--effects analysis beyond what NEPA intended. Still other commenters supported the addition of considerations for social and economic effects.

Congress enacted NEPA to declare a national policy “to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and [to] fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans”. 42 U.S.C. 4331(a). Given the statutory language as it relates to fulfilling the social and economic requirements of present and future generations, USDA finds it appropriate to include considerations of social (i.e., “effects on the quality of life of the American people”) and economic effects in the consideration of affected environment and degree of effects.

With regards to the rationale the responsible official provides as to whether the degree of effect is significant, USDA is aligning considerations of significance with the statutory items that must be disclosed in an EIS, per NEPA Sec. 102(2)(C)(i-v) (42 U.S.C. 4332), such as disclosure of reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts (as both short- and long-term effects), consequences of not implementing the action, irreversible and irretrievable commitment of Federal resources, and long-term productivity of the human environment. Instead of leaving the list of types of effects as disparate disclosures, USDA finds it logical to bring these together when it comes to considerations for significance. The terms “compares to” and “contributes to,” as included in the considerations for significance, provide the necessary precision or focus for conducting the analysis of the effects and considering how the potential impacts compare to the consequences, especially as it relates to effects on public health and safety, economics, and the quality of life of the American people, as well as identifying irreversible and irretrievable commitments and how these contribute to loss of long-term productivity for the human environment. Outlining the significance considerations in this manner allows those conducting effects analysis to better focus on the issues to be analyzed in detail for reasonably foreseeable significant impacts and allows the responsible official to better communicate their rationale for deciding how to proceed and why.

As part of the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.2(f)(3)(iii)(A) is revised to add “and beneficial” to the phrase “How the unavoidable short- and long-term adverse [and beneficial] impacts . . .”. As pointed out by some commenters on the IFR, it is appropriate to also compare the beneficial impacts of implementing the action to the short- and long- term adverse or beneficial consequences of not implementing the action, especially as 7 CFR 1b.2(f)(3)(ii)(B) and 7 CFR 1b.11(a)(12)(i) say both beneficial and adverse effects should be considered. 7 CFR 1b.2(f)(3)(iii)(B) is revised to change “or” to “and” and add the word “Federal” in the phrase “How the irreversible [and] irretrievable commitment of a [Federal] resource”, as this aligns with the statutory language found in NEPA Sec. 102(2)(C)(v), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)(v).

7 CFR 1b.2(g) specifies that as part of USDA subcomponent decision- making, NEPA should be integrated with other environmental analyses to demonstrate compliance with other laws. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.2(h) adds limitations on actions taken during the NEPA process. In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.2(h) is revised to correct the citation “Sec. 1b.2.h” to “paragraph (h)” and change the reference to “USDA” to “USDA subcomponent” or “subcomponent” to be consistent with terminology used throughout the revised regulations.

7 CFR 1b.3--Categorical Exclusions and Findings of Applicability and No Extraordinary Circumstance: Revises the title of this section from “Categorical Exclusions” to “Categorical Exclusions and Findings of Applicability and No Extraordinary Circumstance”. Department-level CEs previously included in paragraph (a) of this section are moved to Sec. 1b.4, with revisions occurring to these as described in the discussion of changes for Sec. 1b.4. Previous paragraphs (b) and (c) in this section are removed. Paragraphs (a) through (j) are added and this section is now revised to read as indicated in 7 CFR 1b.3.

This section adds procedures for establishing and revising (7 CFR 1b.3(b)), adopting (7 CFR 1b.3(c)), removing (7 CFR 1b.3(d)), and applying (7 CFR 1b.3(e)) CEs.

In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.3(a) and 7 CFR 1b.3(c)(3) are revised to change the phrase “USDA's Natural Resources and Environment mission area” to “USDA”. This change is necessary due to the senior agency official changing from the Under Secretary of Natural Resources and Environment to the Deputy Secretary. In the last sentence of 7 CFR 1b.3(a), the term “USDA agency” at the end of the sentence was changed to “USDA subcomponent” to be consistent with terminology used throughout the revised regulations.

In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.3(b)(3) is revised to clarify that public notice must be provided in the Federal Register regarding USDA's establishment or revision of a CE and location of availability of any additional written record. As previously written, it was interpreted that the entire written record must be provided in the Federal Register, and that was not the intent. The intent is to make the public aware of where the written justification can be found, which does not need to be in the Federal Register notice itself. The final rule also revises the term “justification” to “record” in this section, as well as in 7 CFR 1b.3(d)(1-3) and revises references to “categories” in Sec. 1b.3(c)(3)(iii) to now read as “categorical exclusions”.

7 CFR 1b.3(e) adds clarification that USDA subcomponents may use any of

the CEs listed at 7 CFR 1b.4, as well as use non-USDA categories that were adopted by any other USDA subcomponent as specified at Sec. 1b.3(c)(3)(ii).

Several commenters on the IFR disagreed with the provision in the revised regulations that allows any USDA subcomponent to use the CEs now listed in the departmental NEPA regulations at 7 CFR 1b.4, which were initially promulgated through USDA agency-specific NEPA regulations that have now been rescinded. Some commenters also disagreed with the provision that allows any USDA subcomponent to use a CE already established by another USDA subcomponent or adopted from another agency by another USDA subcomponent. Commenters allege additional analysis is required to understand the effects anticipated if the CEs are used by different USDA subcomponents. Some commenters want all agency-promulgated CEs to be formally “adopted” by the Department to allow for appropriate use by subcomponents implementing actions in different settings.

As explained in the preamble for the IFR, the USDA NEPA regulations have always included Department-wide CEs (now moved to 7 CFR 1b.4). See 48 FR 11403 (March 18, 1983) and 60 FR 66481 (Dec. 22, 1995). Given the issuance of one set of departmental NEPA regulations to provide consistency for all USDA subcomponents implementing NEPA, the rescission of agency-specific NEPA regulations, and the overlap of similar programs and activities across USDA mission areas and agencies, the Department finds it is appropriate for USDA subcomponents to apply the same CE where the actions proposed by the subcomponent apply to the actions described by a CE. The focus of a CE is on the character of the actions being proposed and ensuring such actions do not result in an extraordinary circumstance that creates reasonable uncertainty whether the degree of the effect is significant or certainty that a reasonably foreseeable significant effect will occur. The focus is not on the identity of the agency that conducts the action. Where a CE is relevant only to a USDA subcomponent's bespoke program, the CE is already written in a way that its use will be limited to that subcomponent. For example, CE USDA-26c-USFS applies to the “Approval, modification, or continuation of minor, short-term (1 year or less) special uses of NFS lands”; therefore, this CE clearly only applies to the U.S. Forest Service. Additionally, the revised regulations applied numbering that includes the acronym of the USDA subcomponent that initially promulgated the CE, making it clear which subcomponent the CE generally applies to or indicating which subcomponent should be consulted to ensure proper application should another USDA subcomponent want to apply the CE.

There is, therefore, no reason in principle that a USDA subcomponent cannot rely on another agency's CE or adopted CE for the same kind of proposed action. In the case of USDA subcomponents being able to use one another's CEs, USDA subcomponents also share the same extraordinary circumstances review protocol and are readily able to confer with their fellow USDA subcomponents when questions arise. Similarly, for CEs that have already been adopted by a USDA subcomponent, another USDA subcomponent using that CE for the first time can readily confer with the agency that originally promulgated the CE without going through another formal adoption process. In addition, should a USDA subcomponent's proposed action be different from the proposed action encompassed by the CE originally promulgated by another agency, there would be no reason for the USDA subcomponent to rely on that other agency's CE, and the concerns the commenter raises would not arise.

Upon reviewing CEs adopted by USDA agencies since 2024, USDA found that 5 categories had been adopted twice by USDA agencies (Rural Utility Service and Forest Service) for actions that overlap mission areas and instances where these two agencies often function as joint leads or participating agencies on an action. Furthermore, the one example raised by a commenter alleging a CE promulgated by the Farm Service Agency for construction or ground disturbance actions could not apply to the Forest Service is moot because the CE has already been adopted by the Forest Service. These examples readily illustrate why USDA included the provisions in the revised regulations that allow USDA subcomponents to use any CE originally promulgated by another USDA subcomponent (as found in 7 CFR 1b.4) or adopted by another USDA subcomponent (as listed on a USDA website). USDA subcomponents already consult with each other on the historical use and substantiation used to establish a CE when they are unsure if a CE supports an action.

7 CFR 1b.3(e) also clarifies that USDA subcomponents may apply one or more CEs to a proposed action.

Several commenters on the IFR disagreed with the clarification in the revised regulations that more than one CE can be applied to a set of actions, alleging that this practice could lead to significant adverse impacts when “stacking” the use of more than one CE in the same area.

In some circumstances, the combination of CEs can cover all aspects of a proposed action and support a subcomponent's determination that the proposed actions, when considered in their entirety, are not likely to have a reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effect. The intent is not to allow for improper segmentation, whereby a subcomponent would improperly divide a single project into arbitrary segments divorced from logical termini, e.g., by dividing a 10-acre project into 1-acre segments. Rather, the intent is to clarify that a subcomponent may apply multiple CEs when considering proposed actions in their entirety. In such cases, the subcomponent must make a single, comprehensive determination that the CEs, when applied together, are applicable to the action as a whole and do not undermine the conclusion that the proposed action as a whole does not warrant further review in an EA or EIS.

A USDA subcomponent's reliance on multiple CEs is not precluded by NEPA, as they constitute “categories of action,” not distinct “actions,” and therefore a subcomponent can reasonably determine that an action or all constituent elements of an action fit within multiple designated “categories”. If applying more than one CE to a set of actions, the cause-effect relationship must account for the impact of all the actions. It may very well be that the actions as a whole, even though implemented under more than one category, do not lead to an extraordinary circumstance or significant effects. Therefore, the actions may appropriately proceed under more than one category and would continue to be excluded from further analysis in an EA or EIS.

In summary, no changes have been made to section 1b.3(e) relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.3(f) adds procedures for considering extraordinary circumstances, explanation of what constitutes an extraordinary circumstance, and clarification for how the subcomponent should proceed based on the determination of whether there are extraordinary circumstances. Consideration of extraordinary circumstances takes into account the nature of the proposed actions and the context of the potentially affected environment, with a list of resources or

circumstances the responsible official may want to screen for in the potentially affected environment. This section also clarifies an extraordinary circumstance means a unique situation exists in which actions that normally do not have significant impacts and are therefore categorically excluded from documentation in an EA or EIS, create uncertainty whether the degree of the impact is significant for the relevant resources considered (7 CFR 1b.11(a)(17)). The mere presence of one or more of the resources or circumstances listed in 7 CFR 1b.3(f)(1) does not mean an extraordinary circumstance exists. If there is a cause-effect relationship (impact) between the proposed actions and the resource considered, an extraordinary circumstance exists only when there is reasonable uncertainty whether the degree of the effect is significant or certainty that the degree of effect is significant. In such instances, the agency will conduct additional NEPA review under an EA or EIS, as appropriate.

In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.3(f)(2) is revised to add clarification to the sentence that begins with “If there is a cause-effect relationship . . .”. This sentence is split into two sentences and the first sentence now reads as: “If there is a cause-effect relationship (impact) between the proposed actions and the resource considered, the responsible official should consider if there is something unique to the actions proposed or to the condition of the affected environment or resource(s) considered that creates uncertainty about the degree of potential effect or would lead to a reasonably foreseeable significant effect.” This clarification better conveys USDA's intent for how responsible officials should consider extraordinary circumstances. Categories are identified for those actions that routinely have been found to not result in reasonably foreseeable significant effects, and thus that the agency has determined “normally does not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. However, when applying a CE, responsible officials should consider if there is something unique to the actions proposed or to the condition of the affected environment or resource(s) considered that creates uncertainty about the degree of potential effect or would lead to a reasonably foreseeable significant effect.

Previously, some agencies had mandated lists of resources to consider for extraordinary circumstances while other agencies had no list. USDA adds a list of resources (based on the previously existing lists in some USDA agency-specific NEPA regulations) a responsible official may consider for extraordinary circumstances but does not mandate any of these must be considered. Considerations for extraordinary circumstances will be made at the responsible official's sole discretion and determined on a case-by-case basis, considering the nature of the proposed action and the potentially affected environment. This section adds clarification on what constitutes the existence of an extraordinary circumstance and specifies that effects analysis completed to demonstrate compliance with other applicable laws also can be relied on to determine no extraordinary circumstance exists for the resource considered. The Department added this clarification because some agencies were creating duplicative and unnecessary reports in the past.

Several commenters on the IFR expressed concern with the way extraordinary circumstances are defined in the revised regulations. Commenters also generally did not support the clarification that responsible officials have sole discretion to determine resources to be considered for extraordinary circumstances, to modify the proposed action or take other steps to create certainty regarding the degree of effect, or to determine there is “reasonable certainty” a reasonably foreseeable significant impact will not occur. Some commenters also requested that consideration of “important or prime agricultural, forest, or range lands” be removed from resources that may be considered, and the consideration of “American Indians and Alaska Native religious or cultural sites” be added to resources that may be considered.

USDA finds it appropriate to provide for responsible official sole discretion when determining resources for consideration for extraordinary circumstances, as this determination shall be based on the nature of the actions proposed and in the context of the potentially affected environment. Responsible official discretion and determinations of whether an extraordinary circumstance exists is informed by interdisciplinary review (7 CFR 1b.3(g)(2)(v)). To make this clearer in response to the comments expressing concern about responsible official “sole discretion”, a sentence in 7 CFR 1b.3(f) is revised to read: “Resources for consideration for extraordinary circumstances will be determined at the responsible official's sole discretion, [added: as informed by interdisciplinary review] . . .”.

Rather than adding undue process for each and every action undergoing a CEs review, the USDA regulations promote responsible official discretion to determine which resources need to be considered for extraordinary circumstances. Consideration of some resources may be filtered out when looking at what is present in the potentially affected environment and where or how actions will occur.

Section 1b.3(f)(1), which provides a non-exclusive list of the resources the responsible official may screen for in the potentially affected environment when considering extraordinary circumstances, is revised in the final rule to change “important or prime agricultural, forest, or range lands” to “prime, unique, or important farmland as defined by and subject to the provisions of the Farm Protection Policy Act”. The extraordinary circumstance that was listed as “Property (e.g., sites, buildings, structures, and objects) of historic, archeological, or architectural significance, as designated by Federal, Tribal, State, or local governments, or property eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places” in the IFR is revised in the final rule to have the last portion of the sentence read as “or property eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places”. The intent is for properties already listed on the National Register of Historic Places to be considered for extraordinary circumstances, but the previous wording implied it was only properties eligible for listing that needed to be considered. The same section is also revised in the final rule to add “American Indians and Alaska Native religious or cultural sites” as a standalone consideration.

7 CFR 1b.3(g) adds the concept of a finding of applicability and no extraordinary circumstance (FANEC), which applies to all CEs. For those categories requiring NEPA documentation, the regulations specify that these determinations must be documented to demonstrate the appropriate use of the category, adequate consideration of extraordinary circumstances, and a determination that no extraordinary circumstance exists. The regulations give agencies flexibility on how to document these determinations so long as certain items are addressed. It also clarifies documentation considerations for other applicable environmental laws and regulations and timing of action.

In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.3(g)(2)(iii) is revised to replace the word “certify” with the phrase “state how”, to now read: “Describe the proposed action and state how the category or categories

used are applicable to the actions”. The word “certify” was raising questions internally as to what was required to certify the category or categories used, when the intent is merely to state how the category(ies) apply.

7 CFR 1b.3(h) clarifies that USDA subcomponents may rely on other CE determinations. In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.3(h) is revised to clarify that reliance on CE determinations can also include those determinations made within the USDA subcomponent, not just those determinations of other agencies, as there was internal interpretation that USDA subcomponents could not rely on their own previous determinations. The title of this section was also revised to remove the phrase “of other agencies”, as this phrase was contributing to much of the misinterpretation. This change also aligns with the reliance approach outlined in 7 CFR 1b.9(e)(8). This section was also revised to clarify how responsible officials may rely on CE determinations. Reliance can just be on a previous determination that a category or categories applies to the activities being proposed when the activities are substantially the same as those described by the USDA subcomponent or other agency, but the extraordinary circumstance considerations are not substantially the same. Reliance can also be on both the previous determination that a category or categories applies to the activities being proposed when the activities are substantially the same and the previous determination that no extraordinary circumstances exist when the potentially affected environment and resources considered for extraordinary circumstances are substantially the same. The phrase “substantially the same” was already used in 7 CFR 1b.3(h) and was used in 7 CFR 1b.9(e)(8)(i) (as published in the IFR); therefore, this phrase is not solely introduced as part of this final rule but is appropriately used in place of language that was similar in meaning but not exact in wording. As previously worded, it was not clear internally that reliance could only be for the finding that the category (or categories) fits the actions being proposed, or for both that finding and the finding that no extraordinary circumstances exist, as specified at 7 CFR 1b.3(g). In the final rule, the last sentence in this section regarding documentation of reliance was deleted and is now addressed at 7 CFR 1b.9(e)(8)(ii).

7 CFR 1b.3(i) outlines other documentation USDA subcomponents may need to consider when applying CEs. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.3(j) clarifies when timing of the agency action may occur when a CE applies. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.4--Categorical Exclusion of USDA Subcomponents and Actions: This section revises the title from “Exclusion of Agencies” to “Categorical Exclusion of USDA Subcomponents and Actions”. Previous paragraphs (a) and (b) are combined into one paragraph, now paragraph (a), which is revised to read as indicated in 7 CFR 1b.4. Paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) are added to this section.

7 CFR 1b.4(a) includes the list of USDA subcomponents generally excluded from preparing an EA or EIS, with the list of those subcomponents previously listed not changing during this rulemaking process; however, other general offices of the Department were added to this list.

Some commenters on the IFR suggested that the programs and activities of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) should not be excluded from the preparation of an EA or EIS. FSIS programs and activities are currently excluded from the preparation of an EA or EIS in 7 CFR 1b.4(a)(5) of the IFR. This CE was carried over from the prior version of 7 CFR 1b.4.

Several commenters on the IFR assert that FSIS' actions constitute major Federal actions with significant environmental effects and that the CE is inconsistent with NEPA. One group of commenters, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Humane World for Animals (formerly, Humane Society of the United States), and Humane World Action (formerly, Humane Society Legislative Fund) previously submitted a petition requesting promulgation of a rule rescinding the CE for FSIS programs and activities in 7 CFR 1b.4(a)(5). In their comments on the IFR, these organizations include some of the same arguments made in their petition for rulemaking and reference the petition for rulemaking. Another commenter independently submitted comments on this rulemaking that mirror the comments submitted by CBD, Humane World for Animals, and Humane World Action on the IFR and some of the arguments in the petition.

After carefully considering the issues raised by the comments on the IFR, USDA has decided to retain the CE in 7 CFR 1b.4(a)(5). Specific arguments raised in these comment letters on the IFR are addressed below.

The commenters argue that NEPA authorizes categorical exclusions only for individual actions or categories of actions. Commenters claim that the CE in 7 CFR 1b.4(a)(5) violates NEPA because it categorically excludes FSIS as an entity and does not categorically exclude individual actions or categories of actions of FSIS.

The commenters mischaracterize the nature of FSIS' categorical exclusion by suggesting it applies to the agency as an entity. The CEs in 7 CFR 1b.4(a) apply to “programs and activities” of the listed subcomponent agencies, not the agencies as entities. The CEs in 7 CFR 1b.4(a) thus reflect USDA's determination that the programs and activities carried out by FSIS (and other USDA subcomponents) do not normally result in reasonably foreseeable significant impacts on the natural or physical environment, which is the statutory standard for establishment of a CE, see 42 U.S.C. 4336e(1). This analysis, while clearer under the current version of 7 CFR 1b.4(a), was the fundamental analysis underlying the initial promulgation of the CE. The original language from 1983 establishing the CE for FSIS' programs and activities was as follows: “The USDA agencies listed below carry out programs and activities which have been found to have no individual or cumulative effect on the human environment. These agencies are excluded from the requirements to prepare implementing procedures. Actions of these agencies are categorically excluded from the preparation of an EA or EIS unless the agency head determines that an action may have a significant environmental effect.”

Thus, the CE is not a blanket exemption from NEPA documentation. Rather, the establishment of a CE, and subsequent agency findings that an action is excluded pursuant to that categorical exclusion, are forms of NEPA compliance expressly authorized by statute, see 42 U.S.C. 4336(a)(2), (b)(2), 4336e(1). The establishment of (or, in this case, the decision to maintain) a CE is based on a determination that FSIS' programs and activities do not normally require preparation of an EA or EIS.

The commenters also argue that FSIS authorizes actions that have significant impacts on the environment. USDA disagrees. USDA has concluded that FSIS actions involve programs and activities that normally do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and therefore, to the extent that NEPA applies to the FSIS' actions at the threshold state (which, as explained in what follows, it does not, as clarified by recent statutory amendments), the CE is appropriate.

Moreover, FSIS' actions involve programs and activities that are either mandatory, i.e., non-discretionary, or ministerial in nature and, therefore, do not constitute “major Federal actions” that trigger NEPA review in the first instance, as illuminated by the definition of and exclusions from the definition of that term as codified in the 2023 statutory amendments to NEPA, see 42 U.S.C. 4336e(10). In the discussion below, we describe representative FSIS activities and explain how they do not constitute major Federal actions.

FSIS administers inspection programs under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA), (21 U.S.C. 601-695) the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (Id. Sec. Sec. 451-470), and the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (Id. Sec. Sec. 1031-1056). These statutes require FSIS to provide inspection services to establishments that meet statutory requirements and to apply the mark of inspection to products that are not adulterated or misbranded (See id. Sec. Sec. 455, 457, 603-604, 1034, 1035). FSIS has no authority to deny inspection or label approval based on effects to natural resources such as emissions, wastewater discharges, odors, traffic patterns, land use, or other environmental factors regulated by agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), or state and local authorities.

Likewise, FSIS' line speed rulemakings address a narrow, inspection-administration question: what maximum rate, if any, is compatible with FSIS' ability to carry out required post-mortem inspection and with establishments' ability to maintain process control so that adulterated products do not enter commerce. The statutes do not give FSIS authority or discretion to make rulemaking decisions for line speed based on potential environmental impacts.

The Secretary is authorized to withhold or suspend inspection services, or issue “regulatory control actions,” where establishments fail to comply with sanitation requirements. While FSIS has discretion to choose among these enforcement mechanisms based on the facts of a particular case, this discretion is limited to ensuring compliance with food safety requirements and protecting public health. Nothing in the FMIA, PPIA, or EPIA authorizes FSIS to alter the manner in which it carries out its obligations to prevent adulterated products from entering commerce in light of environmental considerations, waste reduction, or other such policy objectives. These actions therefore do not constitute major Federal actions and are therefore not subject to NEPA as a threshold matter. See 42 U.S.C. 4336e(10)(B)(vii).

Additionally, FSIS' decisions regarding the number of government inspectors assigned to an establishment are driven by statutory inspection mandates and staffing needs and do not authorize, fund, or control establishment operations or environmental outcomes. The statutes do not authorize FSIS to assign or withhold inspectors to influence establishment production volume, waste generation, or other potential environmental effects. Therefore, FSIS' decisions regarding the number of government inspectors assigned to an establishment do not constitute major Federal actions. See 42 U.S.C. 4336e(10)(B)(i), (vii).

In commenters' final argument, they contend that FSIS actions, particularly those related to slaughter line speeds, have reasonably foreseeable downstream effects on animal production, transportation, pollution, and waste management that must be analyzed under NEPA.

Under NEPA, the “mandated focus . . . is `the proposed action'-- that is, the project at hand--not other future or geographically separate projects that may be built (or expanded) as a result of or in the wake of the immediate project under consideration”. (Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County 145 S. Ct. 1497, 1515 (2025)) “[A] court may not invoke but-for causation or mere foreseeability to order agency analysis of the effects of every project that might somehow or someday follow from the current project. NEPA calls for the agency to focus on the environmental effects of the project itself, not on the potential environmental effects of future or geographically separate projects.” (Id. at 190 (internal citations omitted)) “The agency may draw what it reasonably concludes is a `manageable line'-- one that encompasses the effects of the project at hand, but not the effects of projects separate in time or place.” (Seven County, 145 S. Ct. 1497, 1517) Therefore, “[a]n agency may decline to evaluate environmental effects from separate projects upstream or downstream from the project at issue”. (Id. at 191)

These same principles apply here. FSIS' actions are limited to ensuring food safety, proper labeling, and humane handling. As such, FSIS regulates sanitation standards, wholesomeness of products, labeling claims, and humane methods of handling and slaughter. FSIS does not regulate animal production, transportation, pollution, or waste management. These activities are regulated by other Federal, state, or local authorities. As such, when determining whether an FSIS action (i.e., regulation of slaughter line speeds) may require NEPA analysis (as described above FSIS does not believe any of its actions are major Federal actions), FSIS is not required to look at effects that may be “factually foreseeable” but are irrelevant to the agency's decision-making process and over which FSIS possesses no regulatory authority. (Id. at 187) For these reasons, downstream effects that an FSIS action may lead to or relate to, such as animal production, transportation, pollution, and waste management activities which are conducted and/or regulated by others, are not effects of FSIS' action and do not trigger NEPA review by FSIS.

Though FSIS has no obligation to analyze these downstream effects, it has addressed factual contentions about them in response to public comments in prior line speed rulemakings. See Modernization of Swine Slaughter Inspection, 84 FR 52300, 52317 (Oct. 1, 2019); Modernization of Poultry Slaughter Inspection, 79 FR 49566, 49610-11 (Aug. 21, 2014). In these rulemakings, commenters asserted that faster line speeds would cause an increase in the total number of animals that a facility would process, which in turn would cause increased water usage, emissions, and consumption of electricity. As FSIS explained in those proceedings, these assertions are misplaced. Faster line speed may allow for more efficient processing but has no direct effect on consumer demand that determines the total number of animals slaughtered. Accordingly, FSIS determined these rulemakings would not have significant effects and sustained the application of the categorical exclusion.

In summary, FSIS does not engage in major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Instead, FSIS programs and activities either: (1) are ministerial or mandatory, and not discretionary, and therefore do not fall within the definition of “major Federal action” subject to NEPA, see 42 U.S.C. 4336e(10); or (2), even if they did fall within this definition, normally do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and are therefore appropriate bases for establishment of a categorical exclusion, see id. Sec. 4336e(1).

Therefore, it remains appropriate for USDA to retain the CE for FSIS' programs and actions in 7 CFR 1b.4(a)(5).

7 CFR 1b.4(b) clarifies how CEs are organized and numbered in the revised regulations. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

The department-level CEs previously listed in 7 CFR 1b.3 have been moved to 7 CFR 1b.4(c) in this section. Examples of actions that fit the category were added to some of the department-wide categories, as further described under the agency-specific regulation changes discussed below. Some agencies had CEs that were duplicative of the department-wide categories or served as examples of those categories; therefore, these were removed as separate categories and added as examples of the department-wide categories where applicable.

CEs previously codified in USDA agency-specific NEPA regulations are now consolidated under 7 CFR 1b.4(c) and (d) in this section. Any changes to the CE language, as previously documented in agency-specific NEPA regulations, are discussed under the applicable agency-specific justification sections below. Other than these few modifications to categories, the majority of categories remain unchanged as originally promulgated and are simply moved from one section of USDA's regulations to another.

Categories are organized in the revised regulations by those that do (7 CFR 1b.4(d)) or do not (7 CFR 1b.4(c)) require NEPA documentation. New numbering was assigned to each CE to make it easier to reference categories across the Department as any USDA subcomponent may utilize the CEs listed in 7 CFR 1b. Numbering includes acronyms at the end indicating the agency that initially established the category to help agency personnel more readily locate the categories they are likely to continue using frequently, as well as to allow Department personnel to identify the agency that originally promulgated the CE should another USDA subcomponent need to consult that agency on appropriate application of the category.

7 CFR 1b.5--Environmental Assessments: This section is added to read as indicated in 7 CFR 1b.5. This section adds procedures for issuing EAs and reinforces the role of an EA.

7 CFR 1b.5(a) outlines the conditions for when an EA will be completed. In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.5(a) is revised to remove two erroneous inclusions of the phrase “the policy in” when referencing sections 1b.2(e) and 1b.2(f) in the regulations.

7 CFR 1b.5(b) adds requirements for defining the “Scope of Analysis” in an EA. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.5(c) gives agencies flexibility on how to format the EA so long as certain items are addressed. It also provides clarification on requirements for analysis of alternatives for an EA and reiterates the importance of deadline and page limit requirements from NEPA, as amended in 2023. Consideration of taking no action shall be included as part of the environmental impacts analysis to contrast the potential impacts of the proposed action, and any alternative(s) if developed, with the current condition and expected future condition if the proposed action or alternative were not implemented (7 CFR 1b.5(c)(2)(i)). This is necessary to inform aspects of the consideration of significance, as specified in 7 CFR 1b.2(f)(3).

In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.5(c) is revised to specify the scope of analysis must be included in the elements for an EA. This is not a new requirement; the requirement in 1b.5(b) to address scope of analysis in the EA was included in the IFR. However, Department personnel pointed out that this requirement could be easily missed in the process of developing an EA because it was not highlighted as a required element for an EA.

In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.5(c)(3) is revised to change the word “consequences” to “impacts”. As pointed out by Department personnel, this change is necessary to align with terminology used in this section (environmental impacts) when clarifying the option to combine the potentially affected environment discussion with the environmental impacts discussion.

In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.5(c)(6) is revised to clarify that the certifying statement for page limits and deadlines does not require a signature, as this was raising questions internally as to whether an EA needs to be signed by the responsible official to make this statement “certified”. The revised language also clarifies that approval to publish the EA to a USDA website indicates the responsible official has reviewed the EA and concurs with the certifying statement.

In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.5(c)(7) is added to the list of elements required for an EA and reads as “Unique identification number”. The USDA subcomponent shall include a unique identification number on the environmental assessment, as required by Sec. 1b.9(u)”. This is not a new requirement, as the requirement in 1b.9(u) to provide a unique identification number on EAs and EISs for tracking purposes was included in the IFR. However, Department personnel pointed out that this requirement could be easily missed in the process of developing an EA because the unique identification number was not highlighted as a required element for an EA.

7 CFR 1b.5(d) emphasizes the statutory requirements for EA page limits. In the final rule, this section is revised to add the citations to NEPA for page limits for EAs to clarify these page limits are statutorily required and not a requirement established in the USDA NEPA regulations.

7 CFR 1b.5(e) states that subcomponents are to adhere to the statutory deadlines and publish an EA “in as substantially complete form as is possible”. This section also requires responsible officials to certify that they made a good faith effort to satisfy the page limit and deadline requirements in the statute. It clarifies when seeking an extension to the deadline is appropriate. These new additions provide the Department's policy on how it will apply the new statutory deadlines in 42 U.S.C. 4336a(g) and page limits in 42 U.S.C. 4336a(e). This policy is based on the rationale that NEPA is governed by a “rule of reason”. Dept. of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 767 (2004). In establishing deadlines for the EA process in the 2023 revision of NEPA, Congress supplied the measure of that reason in NEPA Sec. 107(g), 42 U.S.C. 4336a(g). “Time and resources are simply too limited for us to believe that Congress intended” consideration under NEPA to extend indefinitely. Metro. Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy, 460 U.S. 766, 776 (1983) (citing Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 551 (1978)). This section also clarifies when it may be appropriate to publish a notice of intent to prepare an EA and provides direction on making the EA available to the public.

In the final rule, the second sentence in 7 CFR 1b.5(e)(1) is revised to add “of environmental impacts” at the end of the sentence. This is to clarify the stage at which the interdisciplinary review referred to is occurring. As pointed out by Department personnel, interdisciplinary review also occurs to inform development of the proposed action. This change clarifies that at this stage of interdisciplinary review the proposed action is considered final and now interdisciplinary review is shifting

to analyzing impacts of that proposed action.

In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.5(e)(3) is revised to now include paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii). In paragraph (ii), clarification is provided that publishing a notice of intent for an EA will be at the sole discretion of the responsible official and clarifies what the notice of intent will include if one is published, as there was internal confusion as to whether the notice of intent for an EA needed to be the same as that for an EIS (as outlined in 7 CFR 1b.7(b)). The added language in paragraph (iii) also clarifies that, notwithstanding other statutory or regulatory requirements, the decision to solicit public comment in the notice of intent for an EA shall be at the sole discretion of the responsible official, as there is no statutory requirement in NEPA to solicit public comment in a notice of intent published for an EA, though there is such a statutory requirement for a notice of intent published for an EIS. This does not change the Department's stance in the IFR because the IFR did not require EAs to provide an opportunity for public comment, as this is not statutorily required by NEPA.

7 CFR 1b.5(f) provides requirements for publishing the EA to a USDA website. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.5(g) clarifies circumstances where it may be appropriate to extend deadlines for an EA. In the final rule, this section is revised to remove the erroneous first “as” in the phrase “such as time as”, now reading as “such time as”.

7 CFR 1b.5(h) adds a requirement for the responsible official to certify that the EA was completed within the deadline. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.6--Finding of No Significant Impact: This section is added to read as indicated in 7 CFR 1b.6.

This section adds procedures for issuing findings of no significant impact and reinforces the role of a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). It gives agencies flexibility on how to format the FONSI so long as certain items are addressed. It also provides direction on making the FONSI available to the public, providing notifications, and timing of the action.

7 CFR 1b.6(a) specifies the general requirements for when a FONSI will be prepared. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.6(b) outlines the elements that must be addressed in the FONSI. In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.6(b)(3) is revised to remove an erroneous sentence at the end of the paragraph. The sentence had previously been revised to reflect the correct statement found in the sentence prior to the last sentence in this paragraph, but the incorrect sentence at the end of the paragraph was not deleted. The following correct sentence remains: “If the responsible official finds no significant impacts based on mitigation, state the authority for any mitigation that the responsible official has adopted and any applicable monitoring or enforcement provisions.” The following erroneous sentence has been deleted: “If the responsible official finds no significant effects based on mitigation, the mitigated finding of no significant impact will state any mitigation requirements enforceable by the subcomponent or voluntary mitigation commitments that will be undertaken to avoid significant effects, and any applicable monitoring or enforcement provisions.”

7 CFR 1b.6(c) clarifies other considerations for documentation. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.6(d) includes requirements for publishing the FONSI. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.6(e) includes requirements for the responsible official to provide notifications of the availability of the FONSI. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.6(f) provides clarification on the timing of the action. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.7--Environmental impact statements: This section is added to read as indicated in 7 CFR 1b.7.

This section adds procedures for issuing EISs and reinforces the role of an EIS.

7 CFR 1b.7(a) outlines the conditions for when an EIS will be completed. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.7(b) outlines the requirements for publishing the notice of intent. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.7(c) specifies the scoping process that may be applied. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.7(d) adds clarity on the process for requesting comments during preparation of an EIS to align with statutory requirements in NEPA (Sec. 102(2)(C), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); (Sec. 107(c), 42 U.S.C. 4336a(c)).

7 CFR 1b.7(d) also specifies that a request for comment may be undertaken at any time that is reasonable in the process of preparing an EIS, as the publication of a draft EIS is no longer required. NEPA does not require publication of a draft EIS, and filing a draft EIS with the Environmental Protection Agency and publishing the notice of availability in the Federal Register, as previously required by the now rescinded CEQ regulations, adds time and unnecessary process. Responsible officials still have the discretion to publish a draft EIS on a USDA website, along with any other pre-decisional materials that, in their judgment, may assist in fulfilling their responsibilities under NEPA and in facilitating the request for comments.

7 CFR 1b.7(d) also reiterates that USDA subcomponents must ensure the process of obtaining and addressing comments and the publication of draft or pre-decisional materials must not cause the subcomponent to violate the Congressionally mandated deadline for completion of an EIS.

In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.7(d)(2)(iv) is revised to remove the phrase “including by affirmatively soliciting comments in a manner designed to inform those persons or organizations who may be interested in or affected by the proposed action or action alternatives”. A slightly revised version of this phrase is added at the end of 7 CFR 1b.7(d)(2) that reads as: “May request the comments of the following in a manner designed to inform those persons or organizations who may be interested in or affected by the proposed action or action alternatives:”. This change was made to clarify that solicitation of comments should occur in a manner designed to inform all of the entities listed, as some Department personnel were interpreting that only to apply to the public when the phrase was included at the end of paragraph 1b.7(d)(2)(iv) of this section.

7 CFR 1b.7(e) provides requirements to provide for electronic submission of comments and publishing all substantive comments electronically, or summarizing substantive comments and including this summary as an appendix in the EIS. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.7(f) specifies that subcomponents shall consider comments and should address

comments raising substantive issues or recommendations. This section also focuses the subcomponent on addressing comments by capturing the action the responsible official took in response to the issue raised or recommendation made, and recommends that documentation of how comments were addressed should be included as an appendix in the EIS.

Section 1b.7(f) also requires electronic publication of substantive comments and provides an alternative course of action (providing a summary of comments received) if USDA subcomponents do not have the capability or capacity to electronically publish comments.

Section 1b.7(f) also specifies that USDA subcomponents shall consider substantive comments but leaves discretion for addressing substantive comments in writing. There is no requirement in NEPA to address comments in writing; however, documentation of how comments were considered is highly encouraged to demonstrate the rationale for how the responsible official decides to proceed during the iterative development of the proposed action and action alternatives and the iterative analysis process. This documentation of how the responsible official proceeded and why is advantageous to demonstrating that decisions made during the iterative NEPA process are not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; however, experience implementing the previous CEQ NEPA regulation requirement for responding to comments has demonstrated this process led to burdensome and time-consuming efforts that routinely prevented USDA subcomponents from meeting the 2-year deadline for completing an EIS, which is now statutorily required (NEPA Sec. 107(g)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. 4336a(g)(1)(A)).

Additionally, the approach to “response to comments” that has been employed by some USDA subcomponents was not always been the most effective in that it did not focus on demonstrating the action the responsible official took in response to the substantive issue raised and/or recommendation made. In some cases, the “response to comments” documentation generated levels of paperwork that exceeded the page count of the environmental document itself, defying one of the key principles of NEPA to generate better decisions, not better documents.

For this reason, section 1b.7(f) also clarifies that if documentation is completed to demonstrate how comments were considered and addressed, the documentation should focus on capturing the actions taken, as specified at 7 CFR 1b.7(f)(2), to facilitate a more efficient and effective approach to demonstrate how the responsible official responded to the substantive issue raised and/or recommendation made to improve the decision on how to proceed (e.g., issues to be analyzed in detail, alternatives to be considered or analyzed, or the alternative selected for implementation).

Some commenters disagreed with the emphasis to focus on “substantive” comments and the definition of substantive as provided in the revised regulations. In keeping with one of the key principles of NEPA to generate better decisions, not better documents, USDA is inclined to have responsible officials focus on those issues that are substantive as these issues contain information that meaningfully informs the decision-making process, which includes consideration of reasonably foreseeable impacts on the human environment, the resulting significance determination, decisions on how to proceed (i.e., alternatives to be considered or analyzed or the alternative selected for implementation), and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. (Also see discussion on edits made to the definition of “substantive” under section 1b.11 in the preamble.)

Numerous commenters on the IFR did not support the reduction in opportunities for public comment for the various levels of NEPA review (CE, EA, and EIS), as may have been outlined in some USDA agency- specific NEPA regulations that are now rescinded. Commenters with differing opinions on USDA's overall approach to amending the regulations tended to agree that the lack of opportunity for public comment, particularly for EISs, could have unintended adverse consequences, particularly when it comes to informing and improving agency decisions and waiving exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Several commenters on the IFR stated that the regulations should require a comment period for EAs and require scoping for CEs (which may provide an opportunity to comment), as may have been required by some USDA agency-specific NEPA regulations prior to rescission. Several other commenters supported EAs not having a comment period as they are generally completed for projects that are not likely to have reasonably foreseeable significant impacts but for which a CE does not apply to the actions proposed.

Numerous commenters on the IFR stated that the regulations should require publication of a draft EIS (DEIS) and require a comment period on the DEIS, with many alleging this is a requirement of NEPA itself. These commenters did not support what they see as the loss of transparency and democracy that the DEIS comment period brought to agency decision-making. Some commenters supported the reduction of process associated with publishing a DEIS and soliciting, considering, and responding to additional public comments, contending that the public comment process has become a mechanism for some organizations to spam agencies with form letters and create work that is not value added to the decision-making process but rather serves to further delay implementation of necessary agency actions.

Responsible officials have multiple obligations to consider, such as analyzing the most important resource impacts within statutorily mandated page limits and deadlines, being responsive to varying levels of public interest, managing fluctuations in budget and workforce capacity, and accounting for other situations that require process flexibility. Rather than adding undue process for each and every action undergoing NEPA review, the USDA regulations align with the statutory intent and purpose of NEPA and promote responsible official discretion to determine when and how to involve the public and solicit public comment, unless otherwise statutorily required.

Comment on CEs and EAs is not statutorily required by NEPA. USDA declines to add or keep comment opportunities for CEs and EAs when not statutorily required. USDA acknowledges that this is a shift in practice for the public regarding certain public scoping or comment requirements included in the prior regulations for certain USDA subcomponents. For example, the Forest Service's now rescinded NEPA implementing regulations required scoping for all Forest Service proposed actions, including actions that qualified for CEs (formerly 36 CFR 220.4(e)(1)). As discussed in more detail below, in the section U.S. Forest Service NEPA Compliance Regulations (previously at 36 CFR 220), although there was no requirement in the text of those regulations for written comments on CEs or EAs during scoping under the Forest Service's prior regulations, agency practice generally provided an opportunity for written comment.

USDA declines to continue to require scoping across-the-board within the USDA NEPA regulations because scoping is not required by statute for any level of NEPA review. Rather than adding undue process for each and every action undergoing NEPA review, the USDA regulations align with the statutory intent and purpose of NEPA and promote responsible official discretion to determine when and how to conduct scoping. With regards to the Forest Service, the agency has separate statutory requirements to provide comment opportunities for certain EAs. These comment opportunities are addressed in 36 CFR parts 218 and 219 and these regulations were not affected by the rescission of 36 CFR part 220 or other aspects of this rulemaking.

Publication of a draft EIS and solicitation of public comments on a draft EIS are not statutorily required by NEPA. CEQ's prior regulations generally required, in relevant part, that agencies provide members of the public an opportunity to comment on a draft EIS. 40 CFR 1503.1 (1978) (rescinded). However, Congress comprehensively amended NEPA in the FRA to provide more prescriptive instructions to agencies on completing timely and unified Federal NEPA reviews. 42 U.S.C. 4336a. Specifically, Congress expressly provided for public comment for the first time, at one (and only one) step of the process for developing an environmental document: when an agency issues a notice of intent to prepare an EIS, it must invite public comment on that notice regarding “alternatives or impacts and on relevant information, studies, or analyses with respect to the proposed agency action”. 42 U.S.C. 4336a(c). Congress retained the original obligation to make the EIS available through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Congress elected only to require public comment at the notice of intent stage in the NEPA process for an EIS. USDA's stance is that comment at the notice of intent stage is unique in that it provides an opportunity for fact-gathering from persons who may have relevant (indeed, unique) information about environmental conditions of land they live on or by with respect to projects that USDA subcomponents have determined may have a reasonably foreseeable significant impact. It makes sense that Congress required solicitation of public comment on all notices of intent to prepare an EIS, while imposing no such requirement with respect to an EA, because Congress imposed a shorter deadline for agencies to develop an EA than to develop an EIS and because an EA, by definition, is typically prepared only for proposed actions that are not anticipated to have reasonably foreseeable significant impacts. Accordingly, Congress intended that government and public resources should focus on developing and facilitating public engagement on matters considered in EISs.

As previously stated, the only statutory requirement to solicit public comment is found at 42 U.S.C. 4336a(c), which requires that each notice of intent to prepare an EIS shall include a request for public comment on alternatives or impacts and on relevant information, studies, or analysis with respect to the proposed agency action. There is also a statutory requirement at 42 U.S.C. 4332(C) for the head of the lead agency to consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved. Both statutory requirements for soliciting comments are accounted for in the revised regulations. USDA will abide by the statutory requirement to solicit comments on EISs, as outlined in this final rule, and declines to add comment opportunities that are not statutorily required for EISs. As noted above, the Forest Service continues to have separate statutory requirements to provide public comment opportunities for certain EISs, as provided by 36 CFR parts 218 and 219.

While USDA has considered and agrees with comments describing how the agency decision-making process can be improved by public comments and other forms of public participation, Congress has not elected to make pre-decisional public involvement a requirement. Crucially, however, the fact that USDA's NEPA procedures no longer prescribe a particular public comment process or period over and above what NEPA requires, apart from the USDA decision to require subcomponents to publish a notice of intent in the Federal Register that invites comment when intending to prepare an EIS, does not prevent responsible officials from exercising their discretion to solicit additional public comment when they determine that doing so would assist in reasoned decision-making, not preclude them from meeting statutory deadlines (for EAs/EISs), and not otherwise create unnecessary delays and ambiguity in the environmental review and permitting process. USDA will continue to make its environmental documents available to the public consistent with FOIA, and this requirement is not affected by this rulemaking.

Some commenters on the IFR disagreed with the clarification in the revised regulations that while comments must be considered, there is no requirement to address in writing how comments were considered, alleging failure to address comments in writing would be a violation of NEPA and/or the APA. Additionally, commenters that supported overall streamlining of NEPA processes expressed concern that failure to address in writing how comments were considered by the responsible official could have unintended consequences under the guise of efficiency. These commenters explained that implementation of agency actions could become more difficult if and when these actions are litigated, as the decision could be found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law under the APA.

As clarified in the preamble of the IFR, there is no requirement in NEPA to address comments in writing. Documentation of how comments were considered is highly encouraged to demonstrate the rationale for how the responsible official decides to proceed during the iterative development of the proposed action and action alternatives and the iterative analysis process. However, USDA prefers to maintain responsible official discretion to determine when such documentation would be useful, depending on the nature of the proposed action and the comments received.

While there is no express requirement in NEPA or APA to address comments on a NEPA analysis in writing, USDA subcomponents will determine when such procedural requirements apply on a case-by-case basis and address comments in writing as required or when determined helpful at the discretion of the responsible official, with the understanding that this discretionary additional process cannot preclude the USDA subcomponent from meeting the statutory deadline for completing an EA or EIS (NEPA Section 107(g); 42 U.S.C. 4336a(g)). NEPA analyses are subject to judicial review under the APA, and this regulation directs preparers to provide sufficient reasoning for findings and decisions. The Department finds that subcomponents can provide sufficient reasoning without prescribing a “response to comments” or requiring comments to be addressed in writing. Agencies have multiple obligations to consider, such as analyzing the most important resource impacts within page limits and deadlines, and it is up to preparers to prioritize the content and time of the analysis while providing

sufficient reasoning for decisions made. The Department doesn't find that a mandatory response to comment requirement meets that objective.

In summary, no changes have been made to section 1b.7(f) relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.7(g) adds requirements for defining the “Scope of Analysis” in an EIS. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.7(h) gives subcomponents flexibility on how to format the EIS so long as certain items are addressed. This section also eliminates some aspects of EIS formatting previously required in the CEQ NEPA Implementing Regulations, such as the summary, table of contents, list of preparers, and index. These sections also add additional time and process that do not meaningfully inform decision- making and were more relevant when documents were primarily issued in hard copy instead of electronically.

In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.7(h) is revised to specify the scope of analysis must be included in the elements for an EIS. 7 CFR 1b.7(h)(1)(v) is added to the list of items that should be included on the cover of the EIS. Item (v) reads as, “The unique identification number, as required by Sec. 1b.9(u).” Neither of these are new requirements, as the requirement in 1b.9(g) to address scope of analysis in the EIS and 1b.9(u) to provide a unique identification number on EAs and EISs for tracking purposes were included in the IFR. However, Department personnel pointed out that these requirements could be easily missed in the process of developing an EIS because they were not highlighted as required elements for an EIS.

In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.7(h)(3) is revised to change the phrase “negative environmental impacts” to “consequences”. As pointed out by Department personnel, this change is necessary to align the consideration (in the EIS) of the consequences of taking no action in the case of a no action alternative with the significance considerations outlined at 7 CFR 1b.2(f)(3)(iii)(A), which includes more than just negative environmental impacts. 7 CFR 1b.7(h)(3)(i) is revised to add the phrase “and recommend alternative uses of available resources for unresolved conflicts associated with the proposed action (NEPA section 102(2)(H))” at the end. This addition is necessary to align with the statutory requirement to study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources (NEPA section 102(2)(H); 42 U.S.C. 4332(H)).

In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.7(h)(4) is revised to change the word “consequences” to “impacts”. As pointed out by Department personnel, this change is necessary to align with terminology used in 1b.7(h)(5) (environmental impacts), which is what 1b.7(h)(4) is referring to when clarifying the option to combine the potentially affected environment discussion with the environmental impacts discussion.

In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.7(h)(8) is revised to clarify that the certifying statement for page limits and deadlines does not require a signature, as this was raising questions internally as to whether an EIS needs to be signed by the responsible official to make this statement “certified”. The revised language also clarifies that approval to publish the EIS to a USDA website indicates the responsible official has reviewed the EIS and concurs with the certifying statement.

7 CFR 1b.7(i) emphasizes the statutory requirement for EIS page limits. In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.7(i) and (i)(1) were revised to add the citations to NEPA for page limits for EISs to clarify these page limits are statutorily required and not a requirement established in the USDA NEPA regulations.

7 CFR 1b.7(j) adds a requirement for the responsible official to certify the EIS meets the page limit. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.7(k) emphasizes the statutory deadline for EISs. It states that responsible officials are to adhere to the statutory deadlines and publish an EIS “in as substantially complete form as is possible” and requires responsible officials to certify that they made a good faith effort to satisfy the requirements in the statute. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.7(l) clarifies when seeking an extension to the deadline is appropriate. In the final rule, this section is revised to remove the erroneous first “as” in the phrase “such as time as”, now reading as “such time as”.

7 CFR 1b.7(m) adds a requirement for the responsible official to certify that the EIS was completed within the deadline. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

The additions in sections 1b.7(i) through (m) provide the Department's policy on how it will apply the new statutory deadlines in NEPA Sec. 107(g), 42 U.S.C. 4336a(g) and page limits in NEPA Sec. 107(e), 42 U.S.C. 4336a(e). This policy is based on the rationale that NEPA is governed by a “rule of reason”. Dept. of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (2004). In establishing deadlines for the EIS process in the 2023 revision of NEPA, Congress supplied the measure of that reason in NEPA Sec. 107(g), 42 U.S.C. 4336a(g). “Time and resources are simply too limited for us to believe that Congress intended” consideration under NEPA to extend indefinitely. Metro. Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy, 460 U.S. 766, 776 (1983) (citing Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 551 (1978)).

7 CFR 1b.7(n) gives the responsible official discretion to publish a draft EIS and provides requirements for publishing the completed EIS to a USDA website. Publishing the EIS on a USDA website stops the NEPA deadline clock (2 years to complete an EIS). No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.7(o) specifies the requirement to file the EIS with the Environmental Protection Agency is still the primary means for making the completed EIS available to the public, in addition to publication on a USDA website. In the final rule, the phrase “Office of Federal Activities” was removed because EPA reorganized in 2025 and this office now exists under another name. Due to the potential for future reorganizations, USDA finds it prudent to keep the reference to EPA general with regards to EIS filing procedures.

7 CFR 1b.8--Records of decision: This section is added to read as indicated in 7 CFR 1b.8.

This section adds procedures for issuing records of decision and gives subcomponents flexibility on how to format the record of decision (ROD) so long as certain items are addressed. This section specifies requirements to make the ROD available to the public and provide notification to certain parties.

7 CFR 1b.8(a) specifies the general requirements for when a ROD will be prepared. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.8(b) outlines the elements that must be addressed in the ROD. In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.8(b)(6) is revised to include the sentence, “If the responsible official decides to adopt any mitigation, state the statutory or regulatory authority for the mitigation.” This aligns with recommendations from some commenters on the IFR, as indicated by the discussion on changes

made to the definition of “mitigation”, found below in the preamble for 7 CFR 1b.11--Definitions and Acronyms.

7 CFR 1b.8(c) includes requirements for publishing the ROD. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.8(d) includes requirements for the responsible official to provide notifications of the availability of the ROD. In the final rule, this section was revised to remove erroneous inclusion of the word “during” in the phrase “and any parties that submitted comments during in response to publication of the notice of intent”.

7 CFR 1b.8(e) clarifies timing of action. Notwithstanding other statutory or regulatory requirements, there is no longer a requirement to delay implementation of the action once the Environmental Protection Agency has published the notice of availability for the EIS, the ROD has been made available to the public, and necessary notifications are provided. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.9--Efficient and effective environmental reviews: This section is added to read as indicated in 7 CFR 1b.9.

This section adds best practices for efficient and effective environmental reviews.

7 CFR 1b.9(a), (b), (c), and (d) provides best practices for managing the proposal record and includes recommendations for assembling and managing documentation developed during the environmental review process, responding to Freedom of Information Act requests, managing potential withholdings and privileges, and managing classified information.

In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.9(a) is revised to clarify that the proposal record is not determinative of the scope and content of an administrative record prepared for litigation pursuant to the APA or other law.

No changes have been made to 7 CFR 1b.9(b), (c), or (d) relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.9(e) outlines best practices for reducing paperwork. USDA has removed usage of the terms “tiering” and “adopting”, which were described in the now rescinded CEQ NEPA Implementing Regulations. The term “rely” or “relying” is used (instead of adopting or tiering) as this is the term used in NEPA when referring to programmatic documents (NEPA Sec. 108; 42 U.S.C. 4336b) and expands the original concept of “adopting” (now relying) to include not only whole environmental documents but also portions thereof, to include supporting analysis that may not be included in an environmental, finding, or decision document in whole. To avoid confusion with NEPA Sec. 109 (42 U.S.C. 4336c), the term “adopting” is only used in reference to adopting another Federal agency's CEs (the subject of NEPA Sec. 109) and is no longer used in the context of adopting analyses. Additional clarification is provided regarding reliance on programmatic documents, to align with language added to NEPA, as amended in 2023. The terms “incorporating” or “incorporating by reference” continue to apply and are included in the regulations.

Several commenters on the IFR disagreed with the page limits and deadlines for EAs and EISs, as prescribed to in 7 CFR 1b.9(e) and other sections of the revised regulations. Commenters described the page limits and deadlines as being “arbitrary and capricious” and alleged they are being used by the Department to circumvent adequate effects analysis. Other commenters supported the establishment of page limits and deadlines and encouraged strict adherence to these. Additionally, some commenters proposed establishment of page limits and deadlines for CEs that require NEPA documentation, 10 pages and 3 months respectively, with recommendations for when the timeline would start.

The page limits and deadlines for EAs and EISs, as referred to in the revised regulations, are statutory requirements now included in NEPA, as amended by the FRA. The page limit and deadline discussion in the revised regulations merely emphasizes and reflects congressional intent for succinct and timely completion of EAs and EISs. Given the variability in complexity of actions covered by CEs, whether the categories are promulgated by agencies or statutorily authorized, USDA declines to establish page limits or timelines for those categories requiring NEPA documentation as laws considered during the environmental review process, such as Endangered Species Act or National Historic Preservation Act, could necessarily require page limits or timelines longer than those proposed.

In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.9(e)(7) is revised as the previous wording in the phrase “developed specifically to support that environmental document or associated decision document” was interpreted to mean that information that may be developed for a previous project and relied on for a project at hand (as described in 7 CFR 1b.9(e)(8)) could not also be incorporated by reference. Information that is initially developed for another project could be relied on for a project at hand and also incorporated by reference. USDA's intent was not to preclude incorporation by reference of information that may have initially been developed for another project and is being relied on for the project at hand; therefore, the phrase “developed specifically to support that environmental document or associated decision document” is revised to now read as: “that specifically supports the environmental document or associated finding or decision document”. The term “finding” is added to this phrase as well, as CEs and EAs have finding documents (finding of applicability and no extraordinary circumstance and finding of no significant impact, respectively), not decision documents like an EIS (record of decision).

Additionally, 7 CFR 1b.9(e)(7)(i) is revised to add the phrase “and make the materials reasonably available for review by potentially interested parties” at the end of the sentence. 7 CFR 1b.9(e)(7)(ii) is revised as the previous wording was being interpreted by Department staff to imply that information could not be incorporated by reference after an opportunity for comment was provided. The wording, as included in the IFR, was: “Subcomponents may not incorporate material by reference unless it is reasonably available for inspection by potentially interested persons within the time allowed for comment, when an opportunity for comment is provided.” It is revised to read as: “When an opportunity for comment is provided and the documents or information being commented on refer to material incorporated by reference, this material must be reasonably available for inspection, in draft or final form, by potentially interested persons within the time allowed for comment.” This better conveys USDA's intent that, when USDA solicits comment on a proposal that incorporates by reference certain documents or information, those materials must be readily available for inspection during the comment period--in draft or final form--as information relied on during a comment period may be preliminary and then updated in response to comment received. (In those instances where USDA is incorporating by reference certain documents or information but is not soliciting comment, those materials incorporated by reference will also be made readily available.) Material may also continue to be incorporated by

reference after an opportunity for comment is provided, including in response to comments. Nothing in this provision requires USDA subcomponents to provide an opportunity to comment where not otherwise required or where comment would be inconsistent with USDA's NEPA procedures. 7 CFR 1b.9(e)(7)(iii) is revised with clarifying language that unredacted information that is privileged, classified, or subject to any other potential withholdings should also not be incorporated by reference.

Several commenters on the IFR did not support the removal of the Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) as part of rescinding the Forest Service NEPA regulations previously found at 36 CFR 220. These commenters did not find the use of “relying on analysis” to be a sufficient substitute for the DNA, as formerly outlined in the Forest Service NEPA regulations. Commenters highlighted the efficiencies provided by use of DNA as rationale for including this provision in the revised departmental NEPA regulations. Still other commenters disagreed with the concept of a DNA and relying on analysis altogether, asserting that NEPA does not provide for use of previously completed analysis to be applied to other actions.

The DNA only existed in the Forest Service NEPA regulations (36 CFR part 220). The DNA was a tool to help evaluate the suitability of a previously completed analysis document for potential application to a new proposed action. In the 5 years the DNA was available (from the 2020 revision to 36 CFR part 220 to the rescission of this regulation in July 2025), the agency only used this tool four times. The Department coordinated with Forest Service staff when crafting the language used in 7 CFR 1b.9(e)(8). The Forest Service does not see the elimination of the DNA as a hinderance to gaining efficiencies and conducting adequate consideration of effects given the provision included in the departmental NEPA regulations for “relying” on analysis. With the change in the regulations, the Forest Service plans to use 7 CFR 1b.9(e)(8) as a DNA-type tool for assessing and relying on previously completed analysis, either in whole or in part, whether the analysis was completed within agency or by another agency or external party. The efficiencies gained by relying on existing analyses are now appropriately expanded to all USDA subcomponents.

In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.9(e)(8) is revised to remove the phrase “it makes sense to do so given”, as recommended by some commenters on the IFR. The sentence where that phrase is found now reads as: “USDA subcomponents may rely on previous analysis completed by the subcomponent or analysis completed by any other Federal agency where the nature of the proposal, the potentially affected environment, and the anticipated effects are substantially the same for the current proposal being considered”. The following sentence, which was previously included 7 CFR 1b.9(e)(8)(i), was moved to 7 CFR 1b.9(e)(8) in the final rule with minor edits: “The USDA subcomponent relying on the previously completed analysis shall specify the reliance in the applicable environmental document or finding or decision document and provide explanation of how the nature of the proposal, the potentially affected environment, and the anticipated effects (both quantitatively and qualitatively) were determined to be substantially the same.” (In the final rule, in the phrase “not included in an EA, EIS, FONSI, ROD or FANEC documentation itself”, the erroneous inclusion of “documentation” was removed.)

The phrase “substantially the same” was already used in 7 CFR 1b.3(h) and was used in 7 CFR 1b.9(e)(8)(i) (as published in the IFR); therefore, this phrase is not solely introduced as part of this final rule but is appropriately used in place of language that was similar in meaning but not exact in wording. The phrase “substantially the same” is used for these revisions as it refers to retaining the main characteristics of intent, function, and impacts (effects) of a proposal while allowing minor variations for specific situations (e.g., tailoring design criteria or mitigations to account for unique aspects of the affected environment, or explaining why effects have slight variation but the same outcome with regard to degree of anticipated effect). The focus on main characteristics permits flexibility for practical application without requiring factors or terminology to be identical in every way.

7 CFR 1b.9(e)(8)(i) is revised in the final rule to not repeat discussion included in the previous paragraph and now just focuses on how EAs and EISs relied on in full should be published to a USDA website. 7 CFR 1b.9(e)(8)(ii) is revised in the final rule to specify how reliance on previous CE determinations will be documented for those CEs requiring NEPA documentation, rather than referring back to Sec. 1b.3(h), which is revised as described previously in this preamble.

7 CFR 1.9(f) outlines best practices for reducing delay. In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.9(f)(9) is revised to remove erroneous inclusion of the word “during” in the phrase “Requiring comments received during in response to publication of a notice of intent”.

7 CFR 1b.9(g), (h), (i), and (j) emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary preparation, methodology, scientific accuracy, and disclosing information availability. No changes have been made to these sections relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.9(k) adds public involvement discussions that encourage USDA subcomponents to consider the most effective ways of engaging and informing the public, while allowing necessary discretion on the methods to use given the nature of the proposal and the public entities most likely to be interested or affected. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.9(l) and (m) emphasize the need to eliminate duplication with State, Tribal, and local procedures and promotes timely and unified Federal reviews, to include outlining processes for identifying lead, joint, and cooperating agencies, and provides process for resolving disagreements concerning major Federal actions.

Several commenters on the IFR disagreed with the revised regulations not specifying how responsible officials must engage cooperating agencies. These commenters suggested the final rule specify how responsible officials will “request the participation of each cooperating agency at the earliest practicable time”, as required by NEPA, and ultimately how the lead agency “may . . . designate any Federal, State, Tribal, or local agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposal to serve as a cooperating agency”--with some asserting that designation of cooperating agencies is required by NEPA. These commenters contend that early engagement with state, local, and Tribal governments promotes efficiency as these entities often bring local knowledge, data, and working relationships to the NEPA process.

42 U.S.C. 4336a(a)(3) states that a “lead agency may, with respect to a proposed agency action, designate any Federal, State, Tribal, or local agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposal to serve as a cooperating agency”. A lead agency may, but is not statutorily required to, designate cooperating agencies; however, USDA

recognizes the value of inviting eligible agencies to participate as cooperating agencies early in the proposal intake and development process, especially when an eligible agency will need to rely on an EA or EIS to authorize actions associated with the proposal for which they have jurisdiction by law. Therefore, the final rule adds a requirement for when a responsible official will extend an invitation to, or approve a request from, an eligible agency to be a cooperating agency, as described in the next paragraph.

Rather than adding unnecessary process for each and every action undergoing NEPA review, the USDA regulations align with the statutory intent and purpose of NEPA and generally promote responsible official discretion to determine when and how to invite and designate cooperating agencies. Clarification is added in the final rule at 7 CFR 1b.9(m)(1)(ii) that when a USDA subcomponent is serving as the lead agency, it will fulfill the role of lead agency as outlined at 42 U.S.C. 4336a(a)(2), which includes statutory requirements on engaging cooperating agencies if any have been designated. The cooperating agency section at 7 CFR 1b.9(m)(3) was expanded in the final rule to clarify expectations of responsible officials for considering eligible agencies, as outlined in 42 U.S.C. 4336a(a)(3), as cooperating agencies. A requirement is added that when an eligible agency will need to rely on an EA or EIS to authorize actions associated with the proposal for which they have jurisdiction by law, the responsible official for the lead USDA subcomponent will extend an invitation to, or approve a request from, the eligible agency.

7 CFR 1b.9(n) adds additional clarification on how USDA agencies should proceed with unified documentation, as required by NEPA, where another Federal agency is the lead agency. In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.9(n) is revised to add a sentence that specifies that when an environmental document is being developed by more than one USDA subcomponent, all USDA subcomponents shall contribute to the completion of one environmental document and shall not develop separate documents for each subcomponent, unless justified by other statutory requirements that make it more efficient to do so. This is in response to recent internal experiences where USDA subcomponents have continued to push for doing their own documents rather than unified documentation for actions covered by more than one USDA subcomponent. 7 CFR 1b.9(n)(2) was also revised to add “or authorizing” to the sentence that begins as “When multiple signature blocks are included, the document shall specify what each signing responsible official is approving [or authorizing] . . .”. This was in response to internal feedback that there is a difference between “approving” and “authorizing” and the regulations should account for this when requiring specification of what responsible official is approving or authorizing.

7 CFR 1b.9(o) specifies the agency official at USDA who will determine when a disagreement needs to be elevated to CEQ when there are interagency disagreements concerning the designation of a lead or joint agency or disagreements over proposed major Federal actions that might cause unsatisfactory environmental effects.

7 CFR 1b.9(p), (q), and (r), outlines recommended approaches for preparing EAs and EISs for programmatic actions and provides direction for relying on and reevaluating environmental documents. No changes have been made to sections 1b.9(p) and (q) relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

A commenter raised concerns that it was not clear what triggered the need to reevaluate an EIS and additionally what triggered the need to issue a supplemental EIS. In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.9(r) is revised to clarify what triggers the need to reevaluate any environmental document, as wording in the IFR was creating both external and internal confusion. The phrase “remains to occur” was replaced with “incomplete and ongoing” to be more specific to the status of the action, which may have started but has not been completed. Paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) are added to 7 CFR 1b.9(r) provide necessary direction to USDA subcomponents on how to proceed based on the outcome of the reevaluation for environmental documents that are not an EIS that has been filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as well as for EISs that have been filed with the EPA. In specifying procedures for EISs, it is also necessary to specify procedures for those environmental documents that are not an EIS. In addition to the public comment, since publishing the IFR, numerous USDA staffs have inquired about the process and requirements for making updates to environmental documents. Rather than having each USDA subcomponent develop this guidance, USDA has determined it is appropriate to include these procedures in the revised regulations to ensure consistency and transparency in how environmental documents are reevaluated, updated, necessary notifications considered and made, and document access provided. The revised regulations still provide for a necessary level of responsible official discretion when it comes to documentation formatting, as this is necessary to account for unique program circumstances across USDA mission areas.

7 CFR 1b.9(s) and (t) outline approaches for evaluating proposals for rules, regulations, and legislation. No changes have been made to these sections relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.9(u) specifies the need to apply unique identification numbers to EAs and EISs. In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.9(u) is revised to change the word “on” to “for” in the phrase “which the subcomponent will reference on other documents associated with the proposal”. This correction was necessary as it was being interpreted by Department staff that every document included in a proposal record for an EA or EIS would need to have the unique identification number added to it. The intent is that the unique identification number is used to associate other published documents with the EA or EIS, such as the FONSI (for an EA) or ROD (for an EIS). The unique identification number can also be used in the proposal record file name but does not need to be added to every document included in the proposal record.

7 CFR 1b.9(v) adds direction on how to proceed for emergencies, specifically allowing for actions to address imminent threats prior to any NEPA analysis.

Some commenters on the IFR expressed concern with the emergency authorities and the potential for responsible officials to mis-apply them. Some commenters also questioned the authority of the Department to establish emergency authorities and recommended carrying over language from the rescinded CEQ NEPA regulations.

As explained in the preamble for the IFR, some emergency authorization or emergency procedure language previously included in agency-specific NEPA regulations has been moved to this section in 7 CFR 1b, with much of the language being revised to provide for consistent department-wide language but with the intent remaining the same, as described in the agency-specific regulation changes included below. Where language and procedures were essentially the same across agencies, these procedures are now discussed only once. Where procedures

differed necessarily across agencies, these different procedures are included. Specifics as to some wording changes that were made for agency-specific procedures are discussed under the applicable agency- specific regulation, listed below. This section adds a general emergency action provision for agencies that did not have such provisions in their regulations to coordinate on issuing alternative arrangements for complying with NEPA when completing a CE or EA when reasonably foreseeable significant effects are not anticipated. It specifies that for emergency actions where reasonably foreseeable significant impacts are likely, the responsible official will consult with CEQ about alternative arrangements for NEPA compliance.

The intent of NEPA is to improve agency decision-making and inform the public of the anticipated degree of effects associated with major Federal actions. There are instances where emergency circumstances exist such that Federal agencies must make real-time decisions and implement actions to address imminent threats to life, property, or important natural, cultural, or historic resources. Examples include wildfire suppression response activities or response to natural disaster events impacting basic functionality of infrastructure and utility services that are critical to public safety and initial emergency response and recovery efforts (e.g., transmission lines, communication networks, public transportation networks and systems). The immediacy with which these actions need to be implemented makes it infeasible and impracticable to complete a NEPA analysis without incurring a high likelihood of harm to life, property, or important natural, cultural, or historic resources. Where analysis and documentation are feasible and practicable, even when focused or delayed, agencies should use 7 CFR 1b.9(v)(2) or (3), as applicable.

The need to allow for implementation of actions for emergency circumstances has been standard practice as evidenced by the rescinded Forest Service (36 CFR part 220) (73 FR 43084-01 (July 24, 2008)) and Rural Development (7 CFR Subtitle B part 1970) (81 FR 11000-01 (March 2, 2016)) NEPA regulations. While wording varied between the regulations, both included a category of emergency actions that provided for immediate implementation and did not require NEPA analysis prior to implementation, though did require that adverse effects be considered and mitigated where possible (36 CFR 220.4(b)(1); 7 CFR 1970.18(a)). Both regulations also included a category of emergency actions that may need to be implemented before NEPA analysis was completed, but for which alternative arrangements could be approved to allow the actions to be initiated prior to documenting and disclosing the effects of those actions (36 CFR 220.4(b)(2) and (3); 7 CFR 1970.18(b) and (c)).

In response to the concerns raised, and to align with guidance issued by CEQ on January 21, 2026 regarding emergencies and NEPA, the following revisions are made to 7 CFR 1b.9(v) to better clarify the intent of emergency actions.

In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.9(v) is revised. This section was called “Emergencies--Immediate actions” in the IFR and in the final rule is called “Emergency actions”. Paragraph 1b.9(v) is now paragraph 1b.9(v)(1) and is revised to clarify that NEPA's analysis and documentation requirements should not impede timely execution of action needed to address imminent threats to life, property, or important natural, cultural, or historic resources. In the IFR, this section read as: “If emergency circumstances exist that make it necessary to take action to mitigate harm to life, property, or important natural, cultural, or historic resources, the responsible official may take such actions without preparing an environmental analysis or environmental document. When taking such actions, the responsible official shall take into account the probable environmental consequences of the emergency action and mitigate foreseeable adverse environmental effects to the extent practical.” Paragraph 1b.9(v)(1) now reads as: “If emergency circumstances exist that make it necessary to take action to address imminent threats to life, property, or important natural, cultural, or historic resources, the responsible official may take such actions without preparing a NEPA analysis. When taking such actions, the responsible official shall take into account the probable environmental consequences of the emergency action and consider taking steps to mitigate reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental effects to the extent practical and consistent with agency authority.” The term “immediate”, as it relates to describing the type of actions, has been removed as the section is being retitled to “emergency actions”. The term “imminent threat” is added to describe why the actions need to be implemented without preparing a NEPA analysis and to align with CEQ guidance on emergencies. The term “NEPA analysis” replaces the phrases “environmental analysis or environmental documentation” to clarify the emergency action procedures are only applicable to NEPA. The phrase “and consistent with agency authority” is added to the last sentence to recognize that the responsible official's ability to mitigate reasonably foreseeable adverse effects is also predicated on agency authority to do so.

In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.9(w) is removed. Paragraphs 1b.9(w)(1) and (w)(2) in the IFR are now paragraphs 7 CFR 1b.9(v)(2) and (3), respectively, in the final rule.

In the final rule, the first sentence of 7 CFR 1b.9(v)(2) (formerly 1b.9(w)(1)) is revised. In the IFR, this section read as: “When urgent actions are not likely to have a reasonably foreseeable significant environmental impacts, but an emergency exists that makes it necessary to take urgently needed actions before preparing documentation associated with a categorical exclusion, environmental assessment, or finding of no significant impact, USDA subcomponents may authorize alternative arrangements for environmental compliance so long as the alternative arrangements are limited to actions necessary to address the emergency circumstance.” In the final rule, it reads as: “When taking actions other than those described in paragraph (1) that are not likely to have reasonably foreseeable significant impacts, but emergency circumstances exist that make it necessary to take actions before preparing a categorical exclusion that requires NEPA documentation, an environmental assessment, or a finding of no significant impact, USDA subcomponents may authorize alternative arrangements for NEPA compliance so long as the alternative arrangements are limited to actions necessary to address the emergency circumstance.” The term “urgent”, as it relates to describing the type of actions, has been removed as there are now only “emergency actions”. The phrase “reasonably foreseeable significant environmental impacts” is changed to “reasonably foreseeable significant impacts” to be consistent with terminology used in statute and elsewhere in the revised regulations. The term “NEPA compliance” replaces the phrase “environmental compliance” to clarify the emergency action procedures are only applicable to NEPA.

In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.9(v)(3) (formerly 1b.9(w)(2)) is revised. In the IFR, the first sentence read as: “When urgent actions are likely to have significant environmental impacts, but an emergency exists that makes it necessary to take urgently needed actions before preparing an

environmental impact statement or record of decision, the responsible official taking the action shall request consultation . . .”. In the final rule, the first sentence is revised to read as: “When taking actions other than those described in paragraph (1) that are likely to have reasonably foreseeable significant impacts, but emergency circumstances exist that make it necessary to take the actions before preparing an environmental impact statement or record of decision, the responsible official taking the action shall request consultation . . .”. The term “urgent”, is as it relates to describing the type of actions, has been removed as there are now only “emergency actions”. The phrase “significant environmental impacts” is changed to “reasonably foreseeable significant impacts” to be consistent with terminology used in statute and elsewhere in the revised regulations. In the 1b.9(v)(3) paragraph, after references to the USDA senior agency official, “or their designee” is added as this clarification aligns with 7 CFR 1b.2(b)(2)(vi) (as renumbered in the final rule, and which did not otherwise change as part of the final rule), which allows the senior agency official to delegate certain duties for NEPA compliance.

7 CFR 1b.10--Documents prepared by applicant or third party: This section is added to read as indicated in 7 CFR 1b.10.

This section adds procedures for EAs and EISs prepared by an applicant or third party. Specifies responsibilities of USDA subcomponents when documentation is being prepared by an applicant or third party. Recognizes that NEPA Sec. 107(f), 42 U.S.C. 4336a(f), allows an applicant or other third party (e.g., contractor) to complete an EA or EIS in whole or in part, under supervision of a Federal agency. For purposes of the USDA NEPA regulations, applicant or other third-party preparation is expanded to include, in whole or in part, documentation for a finding of applicability and no extraordinary circumstance for CEs requiring NEPA documentation. This is to account for the various ways USDA subcomponents currently work with applicants and third parties to complete documentation associated with a proposal, which includes more than just the preparation of EAs and EISs. Applicants often complete documentation for actions that fit CEs requiring NEPA or statutorily required environmental review documentation.

Some commenters on the IFR disagreed with documentation prepared by an applicant or third party being expanded to include documentation for CEs, alleging this is not permitted by NEPA as the Act only addresses this for EAs and EISs. However, NEPA does not speak to documentation for CEs. 42. U.S.C. 4336a(f) requires procedures for project sponsor preparation of EAs and EISs, but does not require procedures for project sponsor preparation of CEs. The absence of a requirement is not the same as a prohibition. Disallowing sponsor preparation of a lesser form of NEPA review than an EA or EIS would seem to be inconsistent with Congress's intent. The USDA NEPA regulations provide procedures for CE determinations at 7 CFR 1b.3 and therefore it is also appropriate to provide procedures for applicants or third parties who are developing NEPA documentation for those CEs that require it.

In the final rule, this section is revised to remove erroneous uses of the term “agency” and replace it with “subcomponent” for consistency with other terminology used throughout the revised regulations.

7 CFR 1b.11--Definitions and Acronyms: This section is added to read as indicated in 7 CFR 1b.11.

This section adds cross-references to key definitions from NEPA and carries over some definitions from the 2020 CEQ NEPA Implementation Regulations (such as the definition for “effects”), with modifications made for some definitions such as: mitigation (or mitigation measure) and significance.

In the final rule the definition of “Agency” (7 CFR 1b.11(a)(3)) is revised to remove “the Unites [sic] States Department of Agriculture” and instead use the USDA acronym. This aligns with the use of “USDA” throughout the regulations.

Several commenters on the IFR stated that consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects should explicitly be stated as a requirement in the revised regulations and the definition of “effects” should be revised to include these terms.

Sections 1b.5 and 1b.7 in the revised regulations include “Scope of Analysis” direction for EAs and EISs. The scope of analysis direction stems from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, 145 S. Ct. 1497 (2025). The revised regulations clarify that when completing an EA or EIS, a USDA subcomponent will document where and how it drew a reasonable and manageable line relating to its consideration of any environmental effects from the proposed action (and action alternatives, if any) or project at hand that extend outside the geographical territory of the proposal or might materialize later in time. To the extent it assists in reasoned decision-making, the USDA subcomponent may, but is not required to by NEPA, analyze environmental effects from other actions separate in time (i.e. temporal), or separate in place (i.e. spatial), or that fall outside of the USDA subcomponent's regulatory authority, or that would have to be initiated by a third party. If the USDA subcomponent determines that such analysis would assist it in reasoned decision-making, it will document this determination in the EA or EIS and explain where it drew a reasonable and manageable line relating to the consideration of such effects from such separate actions.

Instead of formulating the evaluation of environmental effects of USDA subcomponent actions using the artificial devices of “direct,” “indirect,” and “cumulative” effects that do not appear in the statute, USDA's NEPA regulations focus on the underlying principle of what constitutes an “effect”. In reorienting the focus of its regulations, USDA does not change or purport to change the scope of effects that USDA subcomponents are required by statute to consider. Both before and after the updates to USDA's NEPA regulations, USDA subcomponents were and are required to consider effects that are both reasonably foreseeable and have a reasonably close causal relationship to their proposed actions and reasonable action alternatives, consistent with the statute, as clarified by the Supreme Court in the Public Citizen and Seven County decisions.

Additionally, in light of Supreme Court's Seven County decision, USDA elected to update its regulations to reflect the phrasing provided by the Supreme Court regarding effects. That is, “To the extent it assists in reasoned decision-making, the USDA subcomponent may, but is not required to by NEPA, analyze environmental effects from other actions separate in time, or separate in place, or that fall outside of the USDA subcomponent's regulatory authority, or that would have to be initiated by a third party. If the USDA subcomponent determines that such analysis would assist it in reasoned decision-making, it will document this determination in the environmental assessment [or environmental impact statement] and explain where it drew a reasonable and manageable line relating to the consideration of such effects from such separate actions.” 7 CFR 1b.5(b)(3) and 7 CFR 1b.7(g)(3). “Similarly, the USDA subcomponent will document in the

environmental assessment [or environmental impact statement] where and how it drew a reasonable and manageable line relating to its consideration of any environmental effects from the proposed action (and action alternatives, if any) or project at hand that extend outside the geographical territory of the proposal or might materialize later in time.” 7 CFR 1b.5(b)(2) and 7 CFR 1b.7(g)(2). Id. (citing Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, 145 S. Ct. 1497 (2025)).

This language, adapted directly from the Seven County decision, provides USDA with direction on how to consider, as appropriate, the environmental consequences of an USDA subcomponent's action that may previously have been expressed in concepts such as “indirect effects” and “cumulative effects”. This focus on the meaning of “effect” has led USDA to restore in large part the concept of “connected action” to the way it was defined in the pre-2020 CEQ regulations, with clarifying emphasis that the subject of analysis is the Federal action, not action taken by non-Federal entities. See 40 CFR 1508.25(a)(1) (rescinded). Even as originally defined in the pre-2020 CEQ regulations, the term “cumulative impact” referred to the “incremental impact” of the proposed action in relation to the context within which that action was taken. See 40 CFR 1508.7 (rescinded). That is, the focus, even of the “cumulative impact analysis” should always have been on change wrought by the effects of the proposed action, and the Seven County decision merely refines that focus.

In summary, NEPA does not include a statutory requirement to analyze direct, indirect, or cumulative effects, and the Supreme Court Seven County decision further validates this interpretation. USDA's Scope of Analysis provision sufficiently addresses the concept of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and provides for their consideration in reasoned decision-making.

Some commenters assert that the revised regulations should require that NEPA effects analysis address climate change and environmental justice considerations.

NEPA does not contain any provisions addressing any specific type of environmental impact. Direction from within the executive branch may in the past have pushed agencies to place special emphasis upon certain categories of effects (i.e., “climate change,” “environmental justice”), but that direction has now been rescinded. See 91 FR 618 (Jan. 8, 2026) (final rule rescinding CEQ's NEPA regulations); Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025) (revoking Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations; Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy, 90 FR 8,353 (Jan. 20, 2025) (revoking Executive Order 14096, Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All). In other words, the distinctions and concepts identified by commenters do not exist in statute and were conceptual creations of CEQ, some agencies, and courts to formulate analysis and guide agency decision-making.

In the final rule, the definition of “Effects” (7 CFR 1b.11(a)(12)) is revised to reword the last sentence in bullet (i). The sentence previously read as: “Effects may also include those resulting from actions that may have both beneficial and detrimental effects, even if on balance the USDA subcomponent believes that the effect will be beneficial.” It now reads as: “Effects appropriate for analysis under NEPA may be either beneficial or adverse, or both, with respect to these values.” This change better ensures a consistent definition of effects across Federal departments and agencies. In this definition, bullet (iii) was also removed as this bullet was included prior to adding the Scope of Analysis direction included for EAs and EISs. It was erroneously left in the IFR and now removed as it conflicts with that direction.

“Mitigation” (7 CFR 1b.11(a)(29)) is added to clarify mitigations are determined by the responsible official and are a reactive response to the effects analysis and are documented in the finding of no significant impact or record of decision. See further discussion below on adding the term “design criteria” to the definition section. In the final rule, the definition of “Mitigation” is revised to include the following sentence, as recommended by some commenters on the IFR: “When adopting mitigations as part of the FONSI or ROD, the statutory or regulatory authority for any mitigation must be provided.” This addresses the concern that unless mitigations are tied to statute or regulation, applicants/third parties could be subject to costly and burdensome mitigations at the whim of the responsible official. Minor edits were also made to the second sentence of the definition, changing “mitigations” to “mitigation measures” and adding the acronyms for FONSI and ROD.

“Significance” (7 CFR 1b.11(a)(50)) is defined as explained under the changes made to section 7 CFR 1b.2.

This section also adds definitions for new terms introduced in the regulations, such as: design criteria (or design elements or design features), emergency, environmental review, extraordinary circumstances, finding of applicability and no extraordinary circumstance, issue, level of NEPA, NEPA process, notice of availability, proposal record, proposed action, purpose and need, scale, scope, senior agency official, and substantive.

The definition for “Design criteria” (7 CFR 1b.11(a)(11)) is added to demonstrate that when these criteria are added to proposed actions or alternatives to achieve similar outcomes of “mitigations” (7 CFR 1b.11(a)(29)), they are added in response to an issue and therefore once the issue has been addressed in this manner it is not an issue that needs to be analyzed in detail. Design criteria are proactive responses to issues identified early in the interdisciplinary process of developing the proposed action and/or action alternatives or when conducting preliminary effects analysis, whereas adding “mitigations” (or “mitigation measures”) is a reactive response by the responsible official to the effects analysis. The definition clarifies that these two terms achieve similar outcomes (for example, avoid or minimize adverse effects), yet apply in distinctly different ways, and also facilitate analytic analysis.

In the final rule, the definition for “Design criteria” is revised to include “resource protection measures” and “best management practices” as alternative terms that mean the same thing, as informed by internal feedback that these are terms used by some USDA subcomponents. The phrase “proactively added to the proposed action” in the first sentence is revised to now read as “that are included as part of the proposed action”. The phrase “in coordination with the applicant if applicable” was also added to the first sentence as recommended by some commenters on the IFR, with the first sentence now reading as: “Design criteria (or design elements, design features, [resource protection measures], [best management practices], or conservation practices etc.) means constraints or requirements proactively added to the proposed action (or action alternatives) or through an iterative interdisciplinary process, in coordination with the applicant if applicable, to avoid or minimize

adverse impacts.” This change was made to address the concern raised by some commenters on the IFR that USDA subcomponents could add costly and/or burdensome design criteria to proposals submitted by applicants/ third parties without their input or consent. The second to last sentence in the definition paragraph is revised with wording that makes it clear design criteria are part of the proposed action (similar language was also added to the last sentence of the definition paragraph) and wording is added to clarify that recommendations for design criteria could be identified as part of interdisciplinary preparation or through external comments. Verbs in (i) through (iii) were revised to eliminate the present participle (removed “ing” endings).

Some commenters on the IFR disagreed with the revised regulations highlighting the differences between “design criteria” and “mitigation measures”. Some had particular concern with the phrase used in the definition of design criteria that states, “[w]hen design criteria are added in response to an issue, that issue should no longer be analyzed in detail in the analysis process”. Some also expressed concern with the definition for mitigation measures and propose it should carry forward the CEQ guidance that “[m]itigation measures may be relied upon to make a finding of no significant impact only if they are imposed by statute or regulation, or submitted by an applicant or agency as part of the original proposal”--alleging the agency cannot enforce application of mitigations (or implementation of design criteria) without statutory authority.

The USDA NEPA regulations purposefully differentiate between design criteria that are intrinsic to the proposed action (i.e. proactively added to the proposed action prior to final effects analysis occurring) and mitigation measures that address effects (i.e. are reactive to the effects described in the final effects analysis). If the applicant or agency has included criteria or constraints as part of the original proposal, these are design criteria (per USDA's definition), not mitigation measures, though both design criteria and mitigation measures serve to minimize or eliminate undesired adverse effects. Section 1b.6(b)(3), which outlines the elements required for a finding of no significant impact, already includes the suggested language that the agency identify the statutory or regulatory authority for mitigations. Section 1b.8(b)(6), which outlines the elements required for a record of decision, is revised in the final rule to reflect the language already included in section 1b.6(b)(3). USDA's application of the terms “design criteria” and “mitigation measures”, as well as clarification that when an issue is addressed through the addition of design criteria that issue should no longer be analyzed in detail (7 CFR 1b.11(a)(11)), is in alignment with the CEQ's 2011 guidance on mitigation and monitoring, which was cited by some commenters (CEQ Memo: Appropriate Use of Mitigation and Monitoring and Clarifying the Appropriate Use of Mitigated Findings of No Significant Impact, January 14, 2011).

The definition of “emergency” (7 CFR 1b.11(a)(13)) is added as this term was used in some of the USDA agency-specific NEPA regulations for emergency action provisions and the concept is carried forward into the USDA NEPA regulations for “emergency actions” (7 CFR 1b.9(v)). In the final rule, the definition of “Emergency” is revised to now read as: “Emergency means circumstances exist that make it necessary to take action where delaying action to follow standard procedures for completing NEPA analysis would be contrary to the public interest, as determined by a responsible official.” This is to align with changes made to terminology and wording used in 7 CFR 1b.9(v), for the reasons described for that section.

The definition of “extraordinary circumstances” (7 CFR 1b.11(a)(17)) is a concept carried forward from the now rescinded CEQ NEPA regulations and is defined in the USDA NEPA regulations. Some USDA agency-specific NEPA regulations included a definition of extraordinary circumstances, while others did not. While these former definitions served to inform the new definition, none of the previous definitions were used in their entirety. The definition included in the USDA NEPA regulations clarifies that an extraordinary circumstance is a unique situation that exists in which actions that normally do not have significant impacts--and are therefore categorically excluded from documentation in an EA or EIS--create uncertainty whether the degree of the effect is significant. The CEQ NEPA regulations and some USDA agency-specific NEPA regulations defined or discussed extraordinary circumstances in a way that created confusion as to when an extraordinary circumstance existed. Some interpreted an extraordinary circumstance to be present when a resource considered for extraordinary circumstances, such as federally listed threatened or endangered species or wetlands, was present. It is not the mere presence of a resource that means an extraordinary circumstance exists, but rather the cause-effect relationship between the proposed actions and the resource considered. An extraordinary circumstance exists only when there is reasonable uncertainty about whether the degree of the impact is significant for the resource being considered.

In the final rule, the definition of “Federal Agency” (7 CFR 1.11(a)(18)) is revised to remove the erroneous phrase “these USDA implementing procedures” and correctly replaced with “this part”. The last sentence of the definition now begins with, “For the purposes of this part . . .”.

The definition of “finding of applicability and no extraordinary circumstance” (7 CFR 1b.11(a)(19)) is added, as the USDA NEPA regulations clarify that the use of a CE is dependent on determinations that a category (or categories) applies to the proposed actions and no extraordinary circumstance exists. In the final rule, this definition is revised to add a sentence at the end that reads, “For those categories that require NEPA documentation, this finding must be documented.” This aligns with 7 CFR 1b.3(g).

The definition of “issue” (7 CFR 1b.11(a)(23)) is added to promote analytic analysis that is focused on cause-effect relationships between the actions proposed (cause) and the reasonably foreseeable impacts (effect) on resources found in the affected environment. The purpose of considering issues is to identify opportunities to modify the proposed action, develop an action alternative, or supplement, improve, or modify the analysis to better understand the effects.

The definitions of “level of NEPA” and “NEPA process” (7 CFR 1b.11(a)(27) and (30)) are added as these terms are used in the regulations in several instances to refer to the different levels of NEPA or process to be completed, those being CE, EA, or EIS. This also helps clarify that using a CE is a NEPA process, as some entities in the past have erroneously alleged that an agency's use of a CE is “circumventing NEPA”.

The definition of “proposal record” (or “project record”) (7 CFR 1b.11(a)(38)) is added to standardize this term and concept for USDA as it is a key piece of the NEPA and integrated environmental review processes that can be overlooked. A well-organized and complete proposal record also can facilitate paperwork reduction.

The definition of “proposed action” (7 CFR 1b.11(a)(39)) is added to differentiate this from a proposal.

“Proposal” is defined by NEPA as “a proposed action at a stage when an agency has a goal, is actively preparing to make a decision on one or more alternative means of accomplishing that goal, and can meaningfully evaluate its effects”. The definition of proposed action takes this a step further to indicate this includes “design criteria” (where these apply) and that this is the version submitted for final interdisciplinary review and effects analysis. Defining a proposed action also can help responsible officials better determine when timelines start for EAs and EISs to track and meet the deadlines now established in NEPA.

The definition of “purpose and need” (7 CFR 1b.11(a)(41)) is added as this is a term used in NEPA (the Act itself) but not defined. The definition clarifies the purpose and need, explains the “why here, why now” rationale for proposing an action, and that this also can incorporate the goals of an applicant (when applicable) and the subcomponent's statutory duty to review an application for authorization.

In the final rule, the definition of “Record of Decision” (ROD) (7 CFR 1b.11(a)(44)) is revised to add the word “documented”. The beginning of the definition now reads as “Record of decision is a documented determination by the responsible official . . .”. This is to accurately reflect that the ROD is a document as it is not included in the definition of “environmental document”, as defined in NEPA Sec. 111(5), 42 U.S.C. 4336e(5).

The definitions of “scale” and “scope” (7 CFR 1b.11(a)(47) and (48)) are added as these terms are used in the USDA NEPA regulations when referring to the scale and scope of actions proposed and issues considered for analysis.

In the final rule, the definition of “Senior agency official” (7 CFR 1b.11(a)(49)) is revised to add the following sentence at the end of the definition: “At USDA, the Deputy Secretary is the senior agency official.” This change was necessary to account for deleting the definition of “USDA senior agency official”. It was found duplicative to have definitions for both of these terms when clarification could be added to the senior agency official definition to specify what position at USDA fills this role.

In the final rule, the definition of “Significance” (7 CFR 1b.11(a)(50)) is revised to remove the phrase “considering whether the reasonably foreseeable impacts of the proposed action are significant and analyzing the potentially affected environment and degree of the effects of the action” and replace it with “the degree of effects of the specific action on the potentially affected environment”, as recommended during interagency review to avoid using the term “significance” in the definition and to provide greater precision with respect to the definition of this term. The definition at (iii)(A) is also revised to add the phrase “and beneficial” to the consideration of short- and long-term impacts, with the sentence now reading as: “How the unavoidable short- and long-term adverse and beneficial impacts of implementing the action . . .”. The definition is also revised at (iii)(B) to change “or” to “and” and add the word “Federal” in the phrase “How the irreversible [and] irretrievable commitment of a [Federal] resource”. These changes align with changes made to 7 CFR 1b.2(f)(3), as previously described in this preamble.

In the final rule the definition of “Subcomponent” (7 CFR 1b.11(a)(52)) is revised to remove “the United States Department of Agriculture” but keeps the USDA acronym. This aligns with the use of “USDA” throughout the regulations.

The definition of “substantive” (7 CFR 1b.11(a)(53)) is added to promote analytic analysis that focuses on information that meaningfully informs the consideration of reasonably foreseeable impacts on the human environment and the resulting significance determination or decisions on how to proceed. Not all issues need the same level of attention and analysis. Rather, it is substantive issues that should be the focus when conducting effects analysis and making iterative and final decisions on how to design, analyze, and implement an action. In the final rule, the definition of “Substantive” is revised to add “or compliance with applicable laws, executive orders, and regulations” to the end of the definition as this is something that must also be considered by the responsible official when reviewing substantive information, as pointed out by some commenters on the IFR.

In the final rule, the definition of “USDA Senior Agency Official” is removed at 7 CFR 1b.11(a)(54) and replaced by the definition of “USDA website” to clarify how the requirement for publishing environmental documents or otherwise making information available to the public on a USDA website can be met as this was not clear to Department staff implementing the IFR. The definition clarifies the information or document required to be made available to the public can also be published on another entity's website so long as a USDA website directs to that other entity's website.

7 CFR 1b.11(b) adds a list of acronyms that may appear throughout 7 CFR 1b or that may be used when applying 7 CFR 1b during the applicable NEPA process. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

7 CFR 1b.12--Severability: This section is added to read as indicated in 7 CFR 1b.12.

7 CFR 1b.12 adds a severability clause that clarifies that the sections of the USDA NEPA Implementing Regulations are separate and severable from one another and describes how other sections or portions may remain valid if another section or portion is stayed or determined to be invalid. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025. 3. Agricultural Research Service Procedures for Implementing NEPA (Previously at 7 CFR 520)

The Agriculture Research Service (ARS) NEPA regulations are rescinded in full except for the following sections that have been consolidated in the 7 CFR 1b regulations: 7 CFR 520.5(b)(2)(i) and (iii).

--7 CFR 520.5(b)(2)(i) and (iii) were moved to examples of activities under one of the CEs previously codified at 7 CFR 1b.3 (department-wide CEs previously under section 1b.3 are now moved to section 1b.4). (now 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(3)(iv) and (v)) 4. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NEPA Implementing Procedures (Previously at 7 CFR 372)

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's (APHIS) NEPA Implementing Procedures at 7 CFR part 372 are rescinded in full except for the following sections that have been moved to 7 CFR part 1b: 7 CFR 372.5(c)(1) through (3) and 7 CFR 372.5(c)(5) (any previously reserved sections are removed as new numbering is applied under 7 CFR 1b); and 7 CFR 372.10(b). Previously codified APHIS CEs are now found at 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(08) through (11).

Minor changes were made to former 7 CFR 372.5(c)(1) through (3) and 7 CFR 372.5(c)(5) as follows when they were moved over to 7 CFR 1b:

--372.5(c)(1)(i): some terms were removed from this paragraph and added them to examples of activities under department-wide CEs previously codified at 7 CFR 1b.3 (department-wide CEs previously

under Sec. 1b.3 are now moved to Sec. 1b.4). The example now reads as: “Identifications, inspections, surveys, sampling, testing, and monitoring that does not cause physical alteration of the environment.” (now 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(3)(i)) --372.5(c)(1)(ii): revised “Examples of routine measures include” to now read as “Examples of routine measures include but are not limited to”. (now 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(8)(ii)) --372.5(c)(2)(i)(B) and (D) were moved to examples of activities under one of the CEs previously codified at 7 CFR 1b.3 (department-wide CEs previously under Sec. 1b.3 are now moved to Sec. 1b.4). (now 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(3)(ii) and (iii)) --372.5(c)(2)(i) and 372.5(c)(5): revised “Examples are” to now read as “Examples include but are not limited to”. (now 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(9) and (11)) --372.5(c)(3)(ii) and (iii): modified by removing erroneous “or” in (ii) and removing erroneous “and” in (iii) and replacing it with “or”. (now 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(10))

Former section 372.10(b) had more extensive changes when it was moved to 7 CFR 1b.9(v)(2)(i). It is revised as follows:

--Eliminates language regarding EAs as this discussion is now covered for all USDA agencies;; uses more generalized language about who can approve alternative arrangements for emergency actions not anticipated to have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect given the ongoing organizational restructuring at USDA that could affect office names or staff position titles; and, eliminates the requirement to document and report to CEQ the alternative arrangements approved at the agency level. (USDA agencies will continue to coordinate with CEQ on alternative arrangements for those activities anticipated to have reasonably foreseeable significant effects.) 5. Farm Service Agency General Implementing Regulations for NEPA (Previously at 7 CFR 799)

The Farm Service Agency (FSA) NEPA regulations are rescinded in full except for the following sections that have been moved to the 7 CFR 1b regulations: 7 CFR 799.12(b), 7 CFR 799.31(b)(1)(2) and (4) through (6), 7 CFR 799.32(d)(1)(2) and (3), 7 CFR 799.32(e)(1)(2) and (3). Previously codified FSA CEs are now found at 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(12) through (16) and (30) and (d)(1) and (2).

7 CFR 799.12(b) was moved to 7 CFR 1b.9(v) but is incorporated into the overall Department guidance for Emergencies, with one paragraph 1b.9(v)(2)(ii) clarifying how the FSA should coordinate alternative arrangements for urgent actions not anticipated to have reasonably foreseeable significant effects.

CEs moved to 7 CFR 1b.4(c) (CEs not requiring documentation under NEPA) because they are historically low impact actions:

--7 CFR part 799.31(b)(1) Loan Actions (combined with other “Loan Actions” categories under one category at 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(30)) --7 CFR part 799.31(b)(2) Repair, improvement, or minor modification actions (now 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(13)) --7 CFR part 799.31(b)(3) Administrative actions are deleted as a category and added as examples under one of the CEs previously codified at 7 CFR 1b.3. (now 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(1)(i) through (iii)) --7 CFR part 799.31(b)(4) Planting actions. (now 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(14)) --7 CFR part 799.31(b)(5) Management actions. (now 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(15)) --7 CFR part 799.31(b)(6) Other FSA actions (now labeled “Miscellaneous FSA Actions”). 799.31(b)(6)(vi) is revised to read as: Safety net programs without ground disturbance. “Without ground disturbance” is added as a clarifier, as the sentence providing this clarification is not moved to 7 CFR 1b. 7CFR 799.31(b)(6)(x) is removed because the adoption provision is no longer needed here. (now 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(16)) --7 CFR 799.32(d)(1) Loan Actions (combined with other “Loan Actions” categories under one category at 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(30)) --7 CFR 799.32(d)(2) Minor management, construction, or repair actions (now 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(12)) --7 CFR 799.32(d)(3) Other FSA actions (combined in list with categories labeled “Miscellaneous FSA Actions”) (now 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(16)) --7 CFR 799.32(d)(3)(iv): Removed as it is duplicative to another category already included in the now combined “Miscellaneous FSA Actions” list and the phrase “(this proposed action, in particular, has the potential to cause effects to historic properties and therefore requires analysis under section 106 of NHPA (54 U.S.C. 306108), as well as under the ESA and wetland protection requirements)” is not necessary as the determination for when compliance with NHPA (National Historic Preservation Act) and ESA (Endangered Species Act) is needed is appropriately done on a case-by-case or programmatic basis and is not appropriate to include in NEPA regulations --7 CFR 799.32(e)(1) Loan Actions (combined with other “Loan Actions” categories under one category at 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(30))

CEs moved to 7 CFR 1b (CEs requiring documentation under NEPA):

--7 CFR 799.32(e)(2) Construction or ground disturbance actions (now 7 CFR 1b.4(d)(1)) --7 CFR 799.32(e)(3) Management and planting type actions (now 7 CFR 1b.4(d)(2))

FSA is applying the definition of major Federal action, as established in the FRA (Pub. L. 118-5), which also amended NEPA. The agency has determined that several types of loan actions fall within one or more of the exclusions in the definition of major Federal actions and will be treating them as such; however, it's possible not all types of loans fall within the exclusions. For this reason, FSA is retaining the existing categories titled “Loan Actions”. FSA will continue to make case-by-case or programmatic determinations as to whether certain loans and potentially other programs or actions meet the statutory definition of major Federal action. Justifications for these and any other programmatic determinations will be made in agency- issued guidance. 6. National Institute of Food and Agriculture Implementation of NEPA Regulations (Previously at 7 CFR 3407)

The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) regulations are rescinded in full except for the following sections that have been moved to the 7 CFR 1b regulations: 7 CFR 3407.6(a)(2)(i)(A) and (C).

--7 CFR 3407.6(a)(2)(i)(A) and (C) were moved to examples of activities under one of the CEs previously codified at 7 CFR 1b.3 (department-wide CEs previously under Sec. 1b.3 are now moved to Sec. 1b.4). (now 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(3)(iv) and (v)) 7. Natural Resources Conservation Service Compliance With NEPA Regulations (Previously at 7 CFR 650)

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) regulations are rescinded in full except for the following sections that have been consolidated in the 7 CFR 1b regulations: 7 CFR 650.6(a) and (d)(1) through (21). Previously codified NRCS CEs are now found at 7 CFR 1b.4(d)(3) through (23).

Minor changes were made to the CE sections as follows when they were moved over to 7 CFR 1b:

--7 CFR 650.6(a): This section was moved to examples of activities under one of the CEs previously codified at 7 CFR 1b.3. (now 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(3)(vi) through (x)) --7 CFR 650.6(d)(14): Revised as follows. In the phrase “Work will be confined to the existing footprint of the dam. . .”, “existing” is replaced with “construction” to now read as “Work will be confined to the construction footprint of the dam”. (now 7 CFR 1b.4(d)(16)) --7 CFR 650.6(d)(15): Revised as follows. In the phrase “Work will be confined to the dam or abutment areas. . .”, the language “construction footprint of the” was inserted, to now read as “Work will be confined to the construction footprint of the dam or abutment areas. . .” (now 7 CFR 1b.4(d)(17)) --7 CFR 650.6(d)(16): Revised as follows. In the phrase “Repairing embankment slope failures on structures. . .”, the language “or reshaping the embankment” was inserted to now read as “Repairing embankment slope failures on structures or reshaping the embankment. . . .” (now 7 CFR 1b.4(d)(18)) --7 CFR 650.6(d)(17): Revised as follows. In the phrase “Work will be confined to the existing dam and abutment areas. . .”, “existing” is replaced with “construction footprint of” to now read as “Work will be confined to the construction footprint of the dam and abutment areas. . . .” (now 7 CFR 1b.4(d)(19))

These CEs focus on routine actions for the repair or updating of existing structures constructed under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Public Law 83-566, or the Flood Control Act, Public Law 78-534. The purpose of rehabilitation projects is to comply with current State safety standards and Federal performance standards, as well as the protection of environmental values associated with the project's structures.

Upon review of the substantiation records associated with the development of these CEs and the NRCS staff's professional knowledge and experience, NRCS determined it needed additional clarity to better define the appropriate scope of these CEs. The term “existing,” in reference to the dam structure, leads to an overly restrictive interpretation that does not meet standard maintenance procedures associated with rehabilitation actions, thus unintentionally restricting the scope and application of the CEs. NRCS completed an analysis of 47 recent site-specific dam rehabilitation EAs, all resulting in a finding of no significant impact. 38 of 47 EAs included one or more actions (NRCS practices) that could qualify for a proposed revised CE. NRCS concluded that 21 of these 38 projects could have been categorically excluded because the proposed action was limited to the dam construction footprint, which was previously disturbed during construction. 17 of those 38 EAs included some actions that could fit the revised CE. Thus, NRCS used the EA analysis to support the conclusion that as individual actions, these actions would not normally lead to significant impacts. The remaining 9 project-specific EAs did not meet the CE criteria because the rehabilitation construction footprint exceeded the original dam construction footprint or involved other actions outside the scope of the CE. These CEs are limited to developed areas, so this modification is not expected to create any new development. Therefore, NRCS determined that when applying these CEs, clarifying the parameters to account for the previously disturbed areas surrounding the finished dam, abutment, or dam slope does not typically result in a significant impact on the human environment and, therefore, justifies changes to the CEs.

The minor modifications reflect an effort by NRCS to provide further clarity and provide transparency regarding the activities, including the associated workspace, covered by the CEs. For actions under these CEs, NRCS personnel will continue to evaluate proposed actions for potential impacts and extraordinary circumstances, including responsibility of the agency to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act and the Endangered Species Act. A copy of the substantiation record for these modifications can be found at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/resources/guides-and-instructions/nrcs-environmental-evaluation-cpa-52-worksheet-tools-and-training.

Additionally, for the final rule NRCS reconsidered whether 7 CFR 650.6(c)(3) needed to be retained in the 7 CFR 1b as this section outlined conditions that must be met before using the CEs listed at Sec. 650.6(d). Rationale was provided in the IFR as to why NRCS did not find it necessary to include this language from an agency perspective; however, in discussions with other USDA subcomponents that may use the NRCS CEs and other federal agencies interested in adopting some of the NRCS CEs, NRCS has determined it appropriate to include revised language in 7 CFR 1b.4(d), as modified by this final rule, that clarifies the need to consider application of a NRCS Conservation Practice Standard or an agency-equivalent technical guideline when using the CEs. NRCS Conservation Practice Standards are regularly updated through a rigorous interdisciplinary national review process and require scientific validity, technical feasibility, and alignment with agency conservation objectives and statutory authorities. Accordingly, although USDA subcomponents or other federal agencies may apply NRCS CEs listed in Sec. 1b.4 (d)(3)-(24), the subcomponent's or federal agency's responsible official must determine that either an applicable NRCS Conservation Practice Standard(s), a comparable subcomponent technical guideline(s), or similar agency-specific conservation or best management practice(s), sufficiently supports its use. 8. Rural Development Environmental Policies and Procedures (Previously at 7 CFR 1970)

The Rural Development regulations are rescinded in full except for the following sections that have been moved to the 7 CFR 1b regulations: 7 CFR 1970.11(b); 7 CFR 1970.18(b); 1970.53(a)(1) through (a)(7), (c)(1) through (c)(9), (d)(1) through (11), (e), (f), and (g); 1970.54(a) through (c). Previously codified Rural Development CEs are now found at 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(17) and (18) and (31) through (40) and (d)(24). The CE at 7 CFR 1b.4(d)(25) in the IFR was moved to 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(39) as part of the final rule as these actions do not require NEPA documentation. 1b.4(d)(25) now shows [Reserved] so as not to require the CEs to be renumbered.

Through this final rule, Rural Development is rescinding the process by which it determined which actions require environmental review as previously codified at 7 CFR 1970.8 and implementing the definition of major Federal action as established in the FRA (Pub. L. 118-5), which also amended NEPA. Rural Development will make case-by- case or programmatic determinations of which programs or actions do not meet the statutory definition of major Federal action. Justifications of programmatic determinations will be made in agency-issued guidance.

In the IFR, Rural Development removed several CEs for actions that the mission area had determined did not meet the definition of major Federal action under NEPA and, therefore, did not require NEPA analysis. However,

recent experiences have indicated there may still be unique circumstances in which some actions do not meet the exclusions for a major Federal action and would therefore be considered a major Federal action and subject to NEPA review. Rural Development has decided, as part of this final rule, to keep the following actions previously codified at: 7 CFR 1970.53(a)(1) through (a)(6), (b)(3), (c)(8), (c)(9), (d)(1), and (f). These categories are added at 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(18)(xviii) through (xx) and 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(33) through (40). The actions are included exactly as they were promulgated in the 7 CFR part 1970 regulations, except for one that required a change (7 CFR 1970.53(a)(2)), as described below. For actions covered by these CEs, Rural Development will make case-by-case or programmatic determinations of which actions do not meet the statutory definition of major Federal action, and where actions are determined to be major Federal actions, the applicable CE can be applied.

Actions previously codified at 1970.53(b)(1) and (2), 1970.53(h), and 1970.55 were removed in the IFR and remain removed as part of this final rule. These actions are already covered by previously promulgated Department-wide categories or are for actions that clearly do not meet the definition of major Federal action.

7 CFR 1970.11(b) is moved to 7 CFR 1b.2(h)(3) verbatim except for the addition of the following phrase at the beginning of the section to indicate it applies to the Rural Development mission area: “When agencies under the Rural Development mission area are obligating funds”.

7 CFR 1970.18(b) is revised and moved to 7 CFR 1b.9(v)(2)(iii) to align with the overarching Department guidance for Emergencies. Adds clarification for how to coordinate to get alternative arrangements approved for emergency actions not anticipated to have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect.

7 CFR 1970.53(a)(2)(i) is revised and moved to 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(34). The original language in paragraph 1970.53(a)(2)(i) is removed and labeled [Reserved] as Rural Development has determined that the actions described are not major Federal actions. The original language also cited two regulations that are now rescinded (40 CFR 1506.1(d) and 7 CFR 1970.12).

7 CFR 1970.53(d)(4) is revised to change the phrase “Includes pole replacements but does not include overhead-to-underground conversions” to now read as “Includes pole replacements and overhead-to-underground conversions”. (Now 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(18)(x).) The equipment used in overhead-to-underground is the same equipment used to install telecommunication fiber, which is covered by other agency CEs (for example, 7 CFR 1970.53(d)(1) (now 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(18)(xx) and (2) (now 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(18)(viii) for both aerial and buried fiber cable within existing rights-of-way). The action of installing underground electric is normally does not have a significant effect on the environment when performed in an existing previously disturbed utility right-of-way. Pole replacements and overhead-to-underground conversions are not significant construction activities with the potential to cause significant effects on the environment when constructed within a previously disturbed right-of-way and do not always require environmental documentation, provided that the activities are reviewed to rule out extraordinary circumstances. This revises the previous codification at 7 CFR 1970.53(d)(4), which required an environmental report. Since 2016, the agency has reviewed numerous projects of this type (overhead-to-underground conversion) as a CE without significant impact on the environment and therefore has determined they were improperly excluded in previous rulemaking [March 2, 2016, 81 FR 11032].

7 CFR 1970.54(b)(2)(i) is revised to change the phrase “Within one mile of currently served areas irrespective of the percent of increase in new capacity” to now read as “Within 20 miles of currently served areas irrespective of the percent of increase in new capacity”. (Now 7 CFR 1b.4(d)(24)(ii)(B).) The change from one (1) mile to twenty (20) miles is based on the review and analysis of EAs issued by the agency, as well as other Federal agency CEs. In addition, the removal of small- scale corridor development that increased capacity by more than 30 percent of the existing user population as a threshold requiring an EA, as previously codified at 7 CFR 1970.54(b)(2)(ii), is based on the review and analysis of EAs issued by the agency, which documents that making the modifications will not normally result in significant effects on the environment. Rural Development has the administrative record of applying 7 CFR1970.53(b)(2) since the promulgation of 7 CFR 1970 and has found no instances where the review was elevated to an EA due to extraordinary circumstances. Further, the agency has reviewed records for over 100 EAs completed for projects that proposed expansion of the distribution or collection system past one mile of the currently served areas or otherwise increased the capacity by more than 30 percent of the existing user population and found all of these to have concluded in a finding of no significant impact on the environment. As none of these projects has documented a significant impact on the environment, the agency is removing the population threshold.

7 CFR 1970.54(a)(4) is revised to remove the last sentence in the following: “Infrastructure to support utility systems such as water or wastewater facilities; headquarters, maintenance, equipment storage, or microwave facilities; and energy management systems. This does not include proposals that either create a new or relocate an existing discharge to or a withdrawal from surface or ground waters, or cause substantial increase in a withdrawal or discharge at an existing site.” (Now 7 CFR 1b.4(d)(24)(i)(D).) The agency has reviewed more than 300 EAs for the activities described in the last sentence and found all of these to have concluded in a finding of no significant impact on the environment. Therefore, the agency has determined these activities do not normally result in a reasonably foreseeable significant effect and it is now appropriate for these actions to occur as part of using this category.

The substantiation record for these modifications can be found at https://www.rd.usda.gov/resources/environmental-studies/environmental-guidance.

Some commenters on the IFR expressed concern regarding the following language included in the CE now listed at 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(18) (USDA-18c-RD): “In accordance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act [NHPA] (54 U.S.C. 300101-306108) and its implementing regulations under 36 CFR 800.3(a), the agency has determined that the actions in this section are undertakings, and in accordance with 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1) has identified those undertakings for which no further review under 36 CFR part 800 is required because they have no potential to cause effects to historic properties. In accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act [ESA] (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544) and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 402, the agency has determined that the actions in this section are actions for purposes of the Endangered Species Act, and in accordance with 50 CFR 402.06 has identified those actions for which no further review under 50 CFR part 402 is required because they will have no effect to listed threatened and

endangered species”. As part of the final rule, this language has been removed from the CE and Rural Development agencies will determine if NHPA or ESA apply to proposals and, if applicable, determine compliance based on the anticipated effects of the proposed actions.

In the final rule, 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(18) (USDA-18c-RD) was also revised to add “or for energy or telecommunication proposals” to the end of the first sentence. In the IFR, the CEs for financial assistance for minor construction and energy or telecommunication proposals were combined under one category in the new regulations, but the IFR erroneously only referred to minor construction projects. 9. U.S. Forest Service NEPA Compliance Regulations (Previously at 36 CFR 220)

The U.S. Forest Service regulations are rescinded in full except for the following sections that are moved to the 7 CFR 1b regulations: 36 CFR 220.6(d)(1) through (12) and (e)(1) through (25) (any previously reserved sections are removed); and 220.4(b)(2). Previously codified Forest Service CEs are now found at 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(19) through (29) and (d)(26) through (47).

Minor changes were made to the CE sections, 36 CFR 220.6(d) and (e), as follows when they were moved over to 7 CFR 1b.4(c) and (d): Generalized the requirement, or lack thereof, for documentation for CEs. The CEs requiring documentation did not change. Where the discussion of documentation used Forest Service-specific terminology (for example, decision memo), this terminology has been removed, and the 7 CFR 1b regulations just state that documentation is required. This aligns with the 7 CFR 1b regulations, which establish consistent CE documentation requirements for all USDA agencies.

36 CFR 220.6(e)(9) In the phrase, “Implementation or modification of minor management practices to improve allotment condition or animal distribution when an allotment management plan is not yet in place”, the following language was removed: “when an allotment management plan is not yet in place”. (Now 7 CFR 1b.4(d)(33).) An allotment management plan (AMP) is a document that specifies how the components of the program action will be implemented to reach a given set of objectives. An AMP is prepared in consultation with the permittee(s) associated with the allotment, and it prescribes the manner and extent to which livestock operations will be conducted; describes the type, location, and construction specifications for rangeland improvements; and contains such other provisions relating to livestock grazing on the associated allotment (see 36 CFR 222.1(b)). AMPs are created after a unit's land management plan and a site-specific grazing decision, both of which undergo their own NEPA analysis. An AMP is the outcome of the grazing decision process. The presence or absence of an AMP does not change the on-the-ground effects of a rangeland improvement because AMPs do not override land management plans or grazing decisions. As such, the revision of language in the CE is a minor change and technical in nature and does not modify the way rangeland improvements are designed or implemented, nor what is authorized in the land management plan or the grazing decision. Currently, most Forest Service grazing allotments have AMPs in place, making this CE unavailable to them. The proposed minor wording change will allow Federal agencies to efficiently maintain or improve rangeland conditions and animal distribution by eliminating a restriction based on paperwork requirements rather than indicators of whether the action may have significant effects, as was considered when initially establishing the category.

36 CFR 220.6(e)(16) is revised to clarify that the land management plan approval document required by 36 CFR part 219 satisfies the documentation requirement for this CE. (Now 7 CFR 1b.4(d)(38).) In the phrase, “. . . are outside the scope of this category and shall be considered separately under Forest Service NEPA procedures,” “Forest Service” was replaced with “USDA” to now read as, “. . . are outside the scope of this category and shall be considered separately under USDA NEPA procedures”. An update to recordkeeping procedures does not change the significance determination made when establishing this CE.

36 CFR 220.4(b)(2) is revised as follows when moved to 7 CFR 1b.9(v)(2)(iv): eliminates language regarding CEs, EAs, and findings of no significant impact as this discussion is now covered for all USDA agencies; and, uses more generalized language about the process for approving alternative arrangements for emergency actions not anticipated to have reasonably foreseeable significant effects given the ongoing organizational restructuring at USDA that could affect office names and staff position titles.

Based on comments received on the IFR, the Forest Service has determined it is appropriate to remove the CE listed at USDA-27c-USFS given these activities are statutorily exempt from NEPA in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 497c(i)--Ski area permit rental charge. Inclusion of this CE removal in this final rule is consistent with 7 CFR 1b.3(d) and CEQ guidance to provide public notice of the removal in the Federal Register. In the final rule, USDA is removing the CE USDA-27c-USFS in response to comments stating that the existing CE is for an action that has statutorily been identified as no longer being a major Federal action. 16 U.S.C. 497(c)(i) states that “[t]o reduce Federal costs in administering the provisions of this section, the reissuance of a ski area permit to provide activities similar in nature and amount to the activities provided under the previous permit shall not constitute a major Federal action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4331 et seq.).” While the Forest Service recognizes that the existing CE uses the term “issuance of a new permit,” while 16 U.S.C. 497c(i) uses the term “reissuance,” the CE clarifies the issuance of a new permit is for “an existing ski area when such issuance is a purely ministerial action to account for administrative changes, such as a change in ownership of ski area improvements, expiration of the current permit, or a change in the statutory authority applicable to the current permit”. This is, for all intents and purposes, a reissuance of a permit for an existing ski area, though that permit may be issued to a new owner to conduct the same activities, issued to the same owner under a new term (similar to reissuing a driver's license that is set to expire), or issued under a new authority but for the same scope of activities--as outlined in the examples. The activities outlined in the CE are clearly not intended for a permit issued for a new ski area that does not already exist; therefore, any permit issued for an existing ski area is considered a reissuance. The USDA NEPA regulations at 7 CFR 1b.2(e)(2) states that NEPA does not apply to proposals exempted from NEPA by law, which this category of proposals is. Therefore, there is no need for the CE as it covers the activities now identified as not being a major Federal action for the purposes of NEPA in 16 U.S.C 497c(i) and there is no need for the agency to engage in the NEPA process when reviewing these ski area permit reissuances.

On January 13, 2026, after the promulgation of the IFR at 90 Fed Reg 29632, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon held that the CE at 7 CFR 1b.4(d)(30) (USDA-30d-

USFS), formerly codified at 36 CFR 220.6(e)(6), did not comply with the APA, and set aside and remanded the CE, Oregon Wild v. USFS, No. 1:22- 1007 (D. Or.). On March 16, 2026, the court clarified, however, that decisions that had been signed as of the date of the order could proceed. The Department is currently evaluating whether to appeal the district court ruling. Given the ongoing evaluation of the court's decision, including the possibility of appeal and the ability of certain existing signed decisions to proceed, the language for that CE is included in this rule at 7 CFR 1b.4(d)(30). If USDA decides not to appeal the decision, or if an appeal is unsuccessful, the rule will be amended to reflect the legal status of the CE.

The Forest Service recognizes that the rescission of the 36 CFR 220 regulations has implications on the 36 CFR 218 regulation for the project-level pre-decisional administrative review process. The Forest Service published a proposed rule on February 6, 2026 to revise 36 CFR 218. While the 7 CFR 1b regulations do not include a “decision notice” for EAs, the revised regulations do clarify at 7 CFR 1b.6(c) that, “If a statute or regulation explicitly requires a decision document to approve actions analyzed in an EA, the finding of no significant impact can be retitled to indicate its function as a decision document.” This is to account for continued application of the 36 CFR 218 regulations for EAs that required issuance of a decision notice under the 36 CFR 220 regulations (Sec. 220.7(c)), until such time as the 36 CFR 218 regulations are revised to account for this change.

Some commenters on the IFR disagreed with elimination, as part of rescinding the 36 CFR 220 regulations, of what commenters characterized as the Forest Service's requirements for public comment on EAs and EISs, the mandated scoping requirement for all levels of NEPA review, and the removal of the requirement for a “schedule of proposed actions” (SOPA). Other commenters supported their understanding of these changes, highlighting that what they understood to be requirements in the Forest Service's now rescinded NEPA regulations went above and beyond the statutory requirements of NEPA and the regulatory requirements outlined in the now rescinded CEQ NEPA regulations.

This final rule does not revise the Forest Service 36 CFR 218 or 219 regulations, which include public comment opportunities on some EAs and EISs.

Upon reviewing the USDA agency-specific NEPA regulations, USDA determined the Forest Service regulations went well beyond the statutory requirements for public comment. Scoping for an EIS is not a statutory requirement; however, the Forest Service NEPA regulations made scoping a requirement for all levels of NEPA review, to include CEs and EAs, and were the only USDA agency-specific NEPA regulations to do so. While the agency established a practice of frequently soliciting written comments during the scoping process, this was never required by the text of 36 CFR 220. Rather, the practice emerged from an understanding of how the Forest Service's regulations interacted with CEQ's NEPA regulations. Those CEQ regulations have now been rescinded. Nothing in the statutory text of NEPA as amended requires either scoping or solicitation for public comment for CE determinations or for EAs. Furthermore, the term “scoping” is not and should not be conflated with statutorily required opportunities for comment on certain EAs and EISs, as reflected in provisions of 36 CFR parts 218 and 219; such opportunities remain unaffected by this rulemaking.

Rather than adding undue process for each and every action undergoing NEPA review, the USDA regulations align with the statutory requirements of NEPA and promote responsible official discretion to determine when and how to apply scoping on a project-by-project basis.

While the requirement in the Forest Service NEPA regulations to publish a SOPA has been rescinded, this does not preclude the agency from continuing to provide this information publicly--whether through the SOPA or continued publication of project information to a forest/ grassland's public web page. The ability and capacity of the agency to provide this information may vary based on funding and staffing levels; therefore, the decision to provide this service should not be predetermined in regulation but appropriately decided on a recurring basis. Furthermore, USDA is currently coordinating with CEQ on the Permitting Technology Action Plan that responds to the Presidential Memorandum on Updating Permitting Technology for the 21st Century. This permitting technology update is departmental in scope. This update aims to identify the capabilities of existing agency systems that can be replicated, using modern technology and software, to enhance the efficiency, transparency, and effectiveness of environmental reviews across USDA in alignment with this final rule. This effort will inevitably lead to the decommissioning of outdated system platforms that require costly maintenance. This is yet another reason to remove regulatory requirements for systems that may not continue to exist in their current form, but whose capabilities may be replicated and expanded through current information technology modernization efforts.