C04r Attachment 14 USDA Final NEPA Regs 1284LM26Q0117.pdf

17062 Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

7 CFR Part 1b

[USDA–2025–0008]

RIN 0503–AA86

National Environmental Policy Act

AGENCY: Agriculture (USDA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is adopting the interim final rule (IFR) published on July 3, 2025, with minor changes, as final. The IFR revised departmental regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and removed various USDA agency regulations for implementing NEPA.

The IFR was in response to the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) rescission of its NEPA implementing regulations (which USDA’s NEPA regulations were designed to supplement), statutory changes to NEPA, executive orders, and case law.

In the IFR, USDA provided a 30-day comment period for the public to review and make comments. This final rule addresses public comments and adopts as final the IFR, with certain substantive changes as explained herein.

DATES: This final rule is effective April 3, 2026.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott Vandegrift, Chief Environmental Review and Permitting Officer, Office of the Secretary, 202–720–5166, SM.OSEC.NRE.NEPA@usda.gov.

Individuals who use telecommunications devices for the hearing-impaired may call 711 to reach the Telecommunications Relay Service, 24 hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following acronyms are used frequently:

APA—Administrative Procedure Act CE—Categorical Exclusion CEQ—Council on Environmental Quality CFR—Code of Federal Regulations EA—Environmental Assessment EIS—Environmental Impact Statement E.O.—Executive Order FANEC—Finding of Applicability and No

Extraordinary Circumstance FONSI—Finding of No Significant Impact FRA—Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 IFR—Interim Final Rule NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act ROD—Record of Decision U.S.C.—United States Code USDA—U.S. Department of Agriculture

I. Background

On February 25, 2025, CEQ issued an interim final rule rescinding their regulations in response to Executive

Order (E.O.) 14154, Unleashing American Energy.

CEQ’s interim final rule (IFR) rescinded its NEPA implementing regulations, including 40 CFR parts 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, and 1508.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

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

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

Second, Congress recently amended NEPA in significant part, in the FRA, Public Law 118–5, signed on June 3, 2023, in which Congress added substantial detail and direction in Title I of NEPA regarding procedural issues that CEQ and individual acting agencies had previously addressed in their own procedures. USDA recognized the need to update its regulations considering these significant legislative changes.

Since USDA’s regulations were originally designed as a supplement to CEQ’s NEPA regulations, USDA had been awaiting CEQ action before revising its regulations, consistent with CEQ direction. See 40 CFR 1507.3(b) (2024); see also 86 FR 34154 (June 29, 2021). However, with CEQ’s regulations rescinded, and with USDA’s NEPA implementing regulations then unmodified more than two years after this significant legislative overhaul, it was exigent that USDA move quickly to conform its regulations to the statute as amended.

And third, the U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a landmark decision in

Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v.

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

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

USDA is affirming the final rule for these same reasons.

In publishing the IFR, USDA found that notice and comment was not required because the rule was interpretive or a rule of agency procedure or practice under 5 U.S.C 553(b)(A) and that, to the extent prior notice and solicitation of public comment would otherwise be required or this action could not immediately take effect, the need to expeditiously replace its existing rules satisfied the ‘‘good cause’’ exceptions in 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(B) and (d). The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes agencies to issue regulations without notice and public comment when an agency finds, for good cause, that notice

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:03 Apr 02, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03APR2.SGM 03APR2lo tte r on

D S

K 8B

H N

X B

4P R

O D w ith

R U

LE

S mailto:SM.OSEC.NRE.NEPA@usda.gov

17063 Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2026 / Rules and Regulations and comment is ‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,’’ 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), and to make the rule effective immediately for good cause. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). USDA’s prior rules were promulgated as a ‘‘supplement[ ]’’ to the CEQ’s NEPA regulations, and USDA also ‘‘adopt[ed]’’ the CEQ’s regulations by incorporation.

Following the rescission of CEQ’s regulations, USDA’s current rules were left to supplement a NEPA framework that no longer exists.

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

For the same reasons stated in the present section, above, USDA found that ‘‘good cause’’ existed under 5 U.S.C.

553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay of the effective date that would otherwise be required. The IFR was accordingly effective immediately. USDA voluntarily took comments on the IFR.

USDA requested and encouraged public comments on the IFR with the rationale that comments may inform USDA’s decision making during this time of substantial regulatory change.

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

Other commenters agreed with USDA’s good cause rationale regarding the comment period and encouraged USDA to publish a final rule as soon as possible.

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

Following the rescission of CEQ’s NEPA regulations, USDA and its agencies were left with vestigial NEPA regulations that ‘‘supplemented’’ a CEQ regulatory regime that no longer existed, which was not tenable and could have caused significant economic harm to USDA’s customers. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)– (B). Portions of this rulemaking also include general statements of policy. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Regardless, USDA did provide notice and an opportunity to comment on the IFR for a 30-day period.

USDA determined that 30 days was adequate because the scope of the IFR was limited to revising or rescinding previously promulgated USDA departmental and agency-specific NEPA regulations. Moreover, USDA monitored and posted the comments as they were received. The public comment period concluded on August 4, 2025.

Furthermore, USDA’s IFR contained all the elements of a notice of proposed rulemaking as required by the APA. 5 U.S.C. 553(b); see also Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter & Paul Home v.

Pennsylvania, 591 U.S. 657 (2020).

USDA explained its position with sufficient detail to put the public on notice that it was revising the departmental NEPA regulations and rescinding the seven agency-specific regulations and provided its rationale along with an opportunity to comment.

The public understood the action USDA was taking and took advantage of the opportunity to comment.

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

USDA received approximately 6,075 written submissions in response to the IFR published on July 3, 2025. The overwhelming majority of the comments (approximately 5,020) were identical campaign form letters sent in response to organized initiatives. USDA received approximately 1,055 unique public comments, though many of these were also very similar in form with only minor content added to make them unique. The volume and substantive content of the comments received indicates that the public had an adequate opportunity to comment.

Thus, while USDA maintains for the reasons noted above that its IFR is subject to the exceptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b), this final rule represents the culmination of a process functionally equivalent to a traditional notice-and-comment rulemaking regardless of the initial procedural basis for the IFR.

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

USDA is issuing this final rule to primarily respond to public comments on the IFR, as well as explain clarifications provided in response to feedback provided by reviewers and implementers of the revised regulations.

This final rule explains that USDA is reaffirming its decision to rescind seven agency-specific NEPA regulations and revise the departmental NEPA regulations, subject to the additional revisions made by this final rule. This final rule therefore supersedes the IFR.

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:45 Apr 02, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03APR2.SGM 03APR2lo tte r on

D S

K 8B

H N

X B

4P R

O D w ith

R U

LE

S

17064 Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2026 / Rules and Regulations opposition to the IFR were expressed by unique comments received. None of the comments received altered USDA’s conclusion that there is a need to revise, move and republish, or remove portions of the USDA NEPA implementing regulations, as well as add new portions, given the CEQ NEPA regulations no longer provide a foundation for USDA NEPA regulations and leave the Department without necessary interpretation of, and implementing regulations for, NEPA.

Comments did, however, inform opportunities to change some content between the interim and final rule as described in the sections pertinent to the comment topic.

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

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

USDA acknowledges both these supportive and non-supportive comments.

II. Basis for Consolidating and Revising USDA’s NEPA Regulations

A. USDA NEPA Regulations

In 1974, the Secretary of Agriculture issued Memorandum No. 1695, Supplement 4 (Revised), to establish guidelines for the preparation of environmental impact statements and compliance with other procedural requirements of § 102(2) of the NEPA.

On May 1, 1979 (44 FR 25606) and July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44802), the Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposed and finalized rules setting forth policies and procedures for compliance with NEPA and CEQ’s implementing regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508). On occasion, the Department has further amended its NEPA regulations to refine and adjust to better meet its organizational and program needs. See

46 FR 47747, 48 FR 11403, 60 FR 66479,

76 FR 4801.

Prior to the IFR, USDA promulgated the most recent iteration of its NEPA regulations in 1995 (60 FR 66479, Dec.

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

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

(2) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, subtitle B, chapter III, part 372, of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (hereinafter 7 CFR

372): ‘‘These procedures implement section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by assuring early and adequate consideration of environmental factors in Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service planning and decision-making and by promoting the effective, efficient integration of all relevant environmental requirements under NEPA. The goal of timely, relevant environmental analysis will be secured principally by adhering to NEPA implementing regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), especially provisions pertaining to timing (§ 1502.5), integration (§ 1502.25), and scope of analysis (§ 1508.25).’’ (7 CFR

372.1 (2018));

(3) Farm Service Agency, subtitle B, chapter VII, subchapter G, part 799, of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (hereinafter 7 CFR 799):

‘‘This part: . . . (2) Establishes FSA procedures to implement the (i) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C.

4321 through 4370); (ii) CEQ regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1518); and

(iii) USDA NEPA regulations (§§ 1b.1 through 1b.4 of this title).’’ (7 CFR 799.1 (2016));

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

(5) Natural Resources Conservation Service, subtitle B, chapter VI, subchapter F, part 650, of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (hereinafter 7 CFR 650): ‘‘The procedures included in this rule supplement CEQ’s NEPA regulations, 40 CFR parts 1500–1508.

CEQ regulations that need no additional elaboration to address NRCS-assisted actions are not repeated in this rule, although the regulations are cited as references. The procedures include some overlap with CEQ regulations.

This is done to highlight items of importance for NRCS. This does not supersede the existing body of NEPA regulations.’’ (7 CFR 650.1 (1979));

(6) Rural Development, subtitle B, chapter XVIII, subchapter H, part 1970, of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (hereinafter 7 CFR 1970):

‘‘This part also supplements the CEQ regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA, 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508. To the extent appropriate, the agency will take into account CEQ guidance and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:03 Apr 02, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03APR2.SGM 03APR2lo tte r on

D S

K 8B

H N

X B

4P R

O D w ith

R U

LE

17065 Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2026 / Rules and Regulations memoranda.’’ (7 CFR 1970.1 (2016));

and

(7) U.S. Forest Service, chapter II, part 220, of title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (hereinafter 36 CFR 220):

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

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

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

B. USDA Agency-Specific NEPA Regulation Summaries

1. Statement of Purpose

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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 109 (42 U.S.C. 4336c) and § 111(1), 42 U.S.C.

4336e(1). They provide procedures governing project-sponsor-prepared EAs and EISs, as directed at NEPA § 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 § 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 § 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:03 Apr 02, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03APR2.SGM 03APR2lo tte r on

D S

K 8B

H N

X B

4P R

O D w ith

R U

LE

17066 Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2026 / Rules and Regulations 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:03 Apr 02, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03APR2.SGM 03APR2lo tte r on

D S

K 8B

H N

X B

4P R

O D w ith

R U

LE

17067 Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2026 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 107(g), 42 U.S.C. 4336a(g), as amended in 2023, and provide an explanation for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:03 Apr 02, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03APR2.SGM 03APR2lo tte r on

D S

K 8B

H N

X B

4P R

O D w ith

R U

LE

17068 Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2026 / Rules and Regulations 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…