The Council on Environmental Quality ( CEQ ) created Categorical Exclusions to reduce paperwork ( 40 CFR § 1500.4 ( p ) ) and reduce delay ( 40 CFR § 1500.5 ( k ) ) so agencies can better concentrate on actions that do have significant effects on the human environment . In 2003 the National Environmental Policy Task Force found agencies " indicated some confusion about the level of analysis and documentation required to use an approved categorical exclusion " . In 2010 CEQ issued guidance on the existing regulations for Categorical Exclusions consistent with NEPA and past CEQ guidance . This CEQ 2010 guidance acknowledges , " Since Federal agencies began using categorical exclusions in the late 1970s , the number and scope of categorically excluded activities have expanded significantly . Today , categorical exclusions are the most frequently employed method of complying with NEPA , underscoring the need for this guidance on the promulgation and use of categorical exclusions . " This CEQ 2010 guidance goes on to caution , " If used inappropriately , categorical exclusions can thwart NEPA 's environmental stewardship goals , by compromising the quality and transparency of agency environmental review and decisionmaking , as well as compromising the opportunity for meaningful public participation and review . " Indeed , the expanded use of Categorical Exclusions undermines NEPA by reducing environmental analysis and public comment , thereby increasing NEPA litigation . The CEQ 2010 guidance emphasizes that Categorical Exclusions must capture the entire proposed action and not be used for a segment or an interdependent part of a larger proposed action . Examples of Exceptional Circumstances that prevent use of Categorical Exclusions include where there are " potential effects on protected species or habitat , or on historic properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places . " The CEQ specifically cites the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill as an example why agencies need to periodically review their Categorical Exclusions " in light of evolving or changing conditions that might present new or different environmental impacts or risks . " Streamlining the NEPA process with categorical exclusions have been criticized , for example allowing BP 's exploration plan that resulted in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill to use a categorical exclusion instead of requiring an Environmental Impact Statement
Deepwater Horizon oil spill
Deepwater Horizon oil spill
National Environmental Policy Act