07-98
A. Agency personnel who wrote basic components of the EIS or significant
background papers must be identified. The EIS should also list the technical
editors who reviewed or edited the statements.
CHAPTER 11
27c. Q. How much information should be included on each person listed?
A. The list of preparers should normally not exceed two pages. Therefore,
agencies must determine which individuals had primary responsibility and need
not identify individuals with minor involvement. The list of preparers should
include a very brief identification of the individuals involved, their
qualifications (expertise, professional disciplines) and the specific portion
of the EIS for which they are responsible. This may be done in tabular form to
cut down on length. A line or two for each person's qualifications should be
sufficient.
28. Q. May an agency file xerox copies of an EIS with EPA pending the
completion of printing the document?
A. Xerox copies Of an EIS may be filed with EPA prior to printing only if the
xerox copies are simultaneously made available to other agencies and the
public. Section 1506.9 of the regulations, which governs EIS filing,
specifically requires Federal agencies to file EISs with EPA no earlier than
the EIS is distributed to the public. However, this section does not prohibit
xeroxing as a form of reproduction and distribution. When an agency chooses
xeroxing as the reproduction method, the EIS must be clear and legible to
permit ease of reading and ultimate microfiching of the EIS. Where color
graphs are important to the EIS, they should be reproduced and circulated with
the xeroxed copy.
29a. Q. What response must an agency provide to a comment on a draft EIS which
states that the EIS's methodology is inadequate or inadequately explained? For
example, what level of detail must an agency include in its response to a
simple postcard comment making such an allegation?
A. Appropriate responses to comments are described in Section 1503.4. Normally
the responses should result in changes in the text of the EIS, not simply a
separate answer at the back of the document. But, in addition, the agency must
state what its response was, and if the agency decides that no substantive
response to a comment is necessary, it must explain briefly why. An agency is
not under an obligation to issue a lengthy reiteration of its methodology for
any portion of an EIS if the only comment addressing the methodology is a
simple complaint that the EIS methodology is inadequate. But agencies must
respond to comments, however brief, which are specific in their criticism of
agency methodology. For example, if a commentor on an EIS said that an
agency's air quality dispersion analysis or methodology was inadequate, and
the agency had included a discussion of that analysis in the EIS, little if
anything need be added in response to such a comment. However, if the
commentor said that the dispersion analysis was inadequate because of its use
of a certain computational technique, or that a dispersion analysis was
inadequately explained because computational techniques were not included or
referenced, the agency would have to respond in a substantive and meaningful-
way to such a comment.
If a number of comments are identical or very similar, agencies may group the
comments and prepare a single answer for each group. Comments may be
53
Previous Page
