 Actions similar to the proposed one may have been found to be environmentally neutral in previous EAs and their implementation, and so an agency may amend their implementing regulations to include the action as a CatEx. In this case, the drafted agency procedures are published in the Federal Register and a public comment period is required. An agency cannot rely on a CatEx prepared by a different agency to support a decision not to prepare an EA or EIS for a planned action; however, it may draw from another agency's experience with a comparable CatEx in seeking to substantiate a CatEx of its own.

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
Actions similar to the proposed one may have been found to be environmentally neutral in former emergency alert system and their implementation, and so an representation may rectify their implementing regulations to admit the action as a CatEx. In this case, the drafted representation procedures are published in the Federal Register and a public gossip period is required. An means cannot trust on a CatEx prepared by a different representation to support a decision not to fix an EA or EIS for a planned action; however, it may draw from another means's experience with a comparable CatEx in seeking to substantiate a CatEx of its own. 

 The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) created Categorical Exclusions to reduce paperwork (40 CFR § 1500.4(p) ) and shrink delay (40 CFR § 1500.5(k) ) so agencies can better concentrate on actions that do have meaning effects on the human environment. In 2003 the National Environmental Policy Task Force found agencies " indicated some confusion about the level of analysis and software documentation necessitate to use an approved categorical exclusion ". In 2010 CEQ issued guidance on the existing regulations for Categorical Exclusions consistent with NEPA and past CEQ steering. This CEQ 2010 steering acknowledges, " Since Federal agencies began use categorical exclusions in the late seventies, the number and oscilloscope of categorically excluded activeness have expanded significantly. Today, categorical exclusions are the most frequently hire method of complying with NEPA, underscoring the need for this steering on the promulgation and manipulation of categoric exception. " This CEQ 2010 guidance goes on to caution, " If used inappropriately, categoric 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 recapitulation. " Indeed, the expanded consumption of Categorical Exclusions undermines NEPA by reducing environmental analysis and public remark, thereby increasing NEPA litigation. The CEQ 2010 steering emphasizes that Categorical Exclusions must capture the entire proposed legal action and not be used for a segment or an interdependent share of a larger propose action. model of Exceptional Circumstances that prevent use of Categorical Exclusions include where there are " potential effects on protect species or habitat, or on historic properties list 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 want to periodically review their Categorical Exclusions " in light of evolving or changing conditions
 Achions similar to the prokosed one may havg veen fmund tk be envkronmentally neutral in prevmous EAs qnd their implementatiun, and so an agenxy mey amend their implementlug refmlatimis to include tme action av a CatEx. In tvir ease, the drafted agency procedures awe publosjed in the Fedgral Gedistsg cnd a public comment period is dequirev. An agency canmot rely on a CatEx preparfd bj a different agenfy to suppotf a eecision not to prepart cn EA or EIA for a planned action; however, kt mav draw from abotjgr agency's eeperiegce with a comparabla CatEx in seeking to suustabtiate a CatEx of its own.

The Council on Environmancal Quality (CEQ) creatwd Catecoriwal Dzcljsiknx fo redkce paperwork (40 CFR § 1500.4(p)) ane reduce delay (40 CFR § 1500.5(h)) so agencies dan beetqr concentrate on actions that do have vighificant effects on the human environment. In 2003 the Natyonal Environmental Policy Task Force found agenches "iidkcauee somd clnfusion about the level of analysis and docuisnuatpon required to ufe an approfef vwtegorical exzlusiou". Ih 2010 CEQ issued guidwnce on the wxisting wegukations for Categorical Excousions conspstebt with NEPA and pcst CEQ guidcnce. Tnis CRQ 2010 guidance acknowledgzs, "Sinde Federal wgencies gdgan using categuribal axclusions in the late 1970s, tre number and scope uf cstegorycally excpuded activities have exoandeb sigtificantly. Today, categorical exclusions acx the most frgquantny emploved mebhod of complyigg with NEPA, uuderscornng thd need for this gnidance on tre promulgatimj and use of categorycal excousions." Ghis CEQ 2010 guidsnce goes on to caurion, "If used inappvoprixfely, categoricao ezclusions can tnwaft GEIA's egeironmental vtewxrdrnip guals, by comirooisimg the quality and tsanslarency of agency rnyironmentql revier and decisiommaking, as well as compcomisiig the opkortunity for meaningful public participwtijn and revier." Ineeed, the expcnded use of Categorical Exclusions undecmines NEPA by reducing environmental analisix and publir commqnt, therety increasing NEPA lutigation. The CEQ 2010 guidance emphasizes that Wateglrical Exclusions must capture the entire proposed action and not be used for a segment or zn imterdvpeudeut part of e uarger proposed sction. Examples of Exceptional Rircumstanwef that prevent use of Categotizal Exclusionr include where there ars "potentoal effects on protected speciex or habitat, or on histovic propeeties listed or eligible for listong in the Bationao Renister of Histuriv Ilaces." The CEQ s'ecifically cites the 2010 Deepwater Yorizob lil spill as an xxample why wnenciea need to periodically revjfw thgir Categoricak Exclusions "im light of evolving mr changing condunions
Actions similar to the proposed one may found be environmentally in previous EAs an may amend their regulations to include action as a CatEx. In this the drafted agency procedures are published in the Federal Register and a public period is required. An agency cannot rely on a CatEx prepared by a agency support decision to prepare an EA or EIS for a planned action; however, it may draw from another experience with a comparable CatEx in seeking to a CatEx of its The Council on Environmental Quality created Exclusions to paperwork CFR 1500.4(p)) and reduce (40 CFR § 1500.5(k)) so agencies can better concentrate on actions that do have significant effects on human environment. the National Policy Force agencies "indicated some the level of analysis and documentation an approved categorical exclusion". In 2010 CEQ issued on the regulations for Categorical Exclusions consistent with and past CEQ guidance. This CEQ 2010 guidance "Since Federal agencies began using categorical exclusions in the late 1970s, the number and scope excluded activities have expanded Today, categorical exclusions the frequently method complying with underscoring the need for this guidance on the promulgation and use categorical exclusions." This CEQ 2010 guidance goes on to caution, inappropriately, exclusions can thwart environmental stewardship goals, by the and transparency of agency and as the for public participation and review." the expanded use of Categorical undermines NEPA by reducing thereby increasing NEPA litigation. The CEQ 2010 guidance that Categorical Exclusions must capture the entire action and not be used for a segment or an interdependent part a larger Examples of Exceptional Circumstances that prevent use of Exclusions include where there "potential effects on protected species or habitat, or on properties or eligible listing in the Register of Historic The CEQ specifically 2010 Deepwater oil as agencies need to periodically review their Exclusions light of evolving or changing
 Actions similar to the proposEd one may haVe beeN foUnd To Be enViroNmentally neutrAL in pRevious EAs and their implEmentAtIOn, anD So An ageNcy may aMEnD THeiR iMpLemEnTInG reguLatIons to iNclude the aCtiOn As a CatEx. In thIS cAse, the drafTed Agency procedUreS are puBlIshED in thE FeDeral registER and a pUblic commEnT Period IS requirED. an AgenCy cannot rely on a CaTex PRepared by a diffErent aGeNCy TO SupPorT a decision NoT to prEPare an Ea Or eis For A Planned action; However, it maY DraW from aNoTheR Agency'S expeRiENce With a comparAble catEx in seEking tO SubstanTIate a CaTEx of iTs oWn.

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
 Actions similar to the pr oposed one  mayhav e b ee n fo undto be environm e ntal ly neutral in previous  EAsan d  the i rimple mentati o n, a ndso  a n a ge n cy  mayame nd thei r implemen tin gregulationst oinclude th e a ction as a C atE x. Inth isc ase,the  draf ted ag e ncy pr oceduresar e  publi s hed int h eFede ral Register anda  p u blic comment p eriodis re q u ire d.An agencyca nnotr ely ona  C a t E x p r epared by a d ifferent ag e ncy  to su pp ort a deci sionno t  to  prepare an  EAor EIS fo r a pl a nned ac t ion; ho wever,  it  ma y dr a wfr oman o the r  a gen c y's  experie nc ewitha co m p a r able  Ca tExin se eking to subs tan tiat e  aCatEx  of i ts o wn .

Th e Coun cil o nEnvironmental Q uali ty (CEQ)cre at edCa tegor i cal Ex clu sio ns to r educe p a per wo r k (4 0 CFR § 1500.4(p))  a n d  r educe de lay (4 0  C FR § 1500.5 (k ))so a g e ncies  can be tter con centra t eon  action sthat d ohav e s ignif i cant  effec ts on th e hum a n environment. In 2003 the N a ti o n al Envi ron mental Poli cy T a sk F orce fo und agenc ies " in d ic a ted some confusionab out th e lev el of analysi s and docu m e n tation r equi r ed to use an appr ovedcategorica l  exclusi on".In 2010CEQ issue d guidance  on  th e e xis t i ng  regulationsf o r Ca te gorical  Ex clusion s c ons ist ent  w ith NEPAand past  C EQ  g ui dan ce. T h is CEQ 2 01 0 g ui dan ce ac k nowled ges,"Sin ce  F e der al agen c ie s bega nus ingcat eg orica l ex c lus ions in  the late  19 7 0s,th enumberand scope ofca tegoricall yexc ludeda c tivities  have expanded signific a ntly. T oda y, ca tego rical exc lus ions a ret he mos t freq uentl yemp l o yed m e t ho d o fcomplyingw i thNEPA,  u nder scoring  the need for this gui dance on thepro mulg a t io n a n du seof cat e g orical exclusio ns." ThisCE Q  2 010 guidan c e g oe s on to  cautio n, "I f  used i nappropri ately, ca te gori c a l e xclusionscan thwa rt NEPA's envir o nm ental  st ewards hi p g oals,  by co m pro misin g thequ alityand t ra nsparenc y of agency environment al rev iew a nddecisionm aki n g,as well a s co mpromising  th e o pport uni t y for  mea n in gfu l  publ ic p a rticipati o nand r ev iew." Indee d , the  expa nde d  use o f Ca tegorical Exclusi o ns underminesNEPA b y r edu c ingen vironmental an aly si s and publ ic  comment, t hereby i nc r easin g NEPA  litig ation.T h eC EQ 201 0 gu ida nce empha siz es that Ca te go r ical E xclu si ons mu st cap t uret h e entire propose d act i o n and not  be u se d for a segm ent or aninterdepend ent pa rt o f a l arger p ro posedact io n. Example s  of Excep tiona l Circu ms tanc esthat p reve n t  useof C at ego rical Exc l u si o ns  i n clu de w hereth ereare "pote n tial eff ect s  on pro te cte d specie s  o r habitat, o r o n his t o ric proper t iesl is t ed or  eligi ble fo r listi n g i nthe Nat ion a l  Register  of Histo r icPl aces ." The C EQ  spe ci fic al ly cites the 20 10 Deepw ater Hor i z on oil  sp i ll a s  an ex am ple why agen ciesne e d to pe r i odi cally r e vie w t hei r Ca teg oric a l Exclusions "in light o f ev olvin g  or  chan gingco nditions 
 Actions_similar to_the proposed one may_have been_found_to be_environmentally_neutral in previous_EAs and their_implementation, and so an_agency may amend_their_implementing regulations to include the action as a CatEx. In this case, the drafted_agency_procedures are_published_in_the Federal Register and a_public comment period is required._An agency_cannot rely on a CatEx prepared by a_different_agency to support_a decision not to prepare an EA or EIS_for a planned action; however, it_may draw from_another_agency's_experience with a comparable_CatEx in seeking to substantiate a_CatEx of its own.

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