United States
Partially Restores National Environmental Policy Act Provisions by the Council on Environmental Quality
To print this article you only need to sign up or login on Mondaq.com
The U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), published
AFinal RuleInformation regarding implementation
The regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act are available here
Wednesday, April 20. The final version of the CEQ was released as expected.
Revises three of the Proposed Rules and is nearly identical to their earlier Proposed Rule.
CEQ identified separate NEPA provisions as significant
Federal officials face immediate implementation and interpretation challenges.
agencies. These three provisions include purpose, need, and 40
C.F.R. C.F.R.
1507.3; and the definitions of effects
impacts. CEQ’s Final Rule is discarded.
The agency made revisions to NEPA regulations for 2020 and returns.
Certain aspects of NEPA Review are different to the former. CEQ notified
This revision is the first phase of two, so additional NEPA
Regulative revisions are expected to be completed later in the year.
The Final Rule addresses the three regulatory changes made
by the 2020 NEPA Revises. A brief summary of these provisions
follows.
- Purpose and need
Statements.Follow the Final
Rule. An environmental impact statement must (EIS) again include a
When a federal action is involved, it should be broad in purpose and need.
Approval of a proposal by a nonfederal applicant The rule
Eliminates the requirement that agencies base the EIS.
The purpose and the need for a project that addresses the goals of an nonfederal
applicant. The Final Rule, which replaces it, provides federal agencies with the necessary information.
The freedom to analyze many factors, including the goal.
application from a nonfederal applicant. The Final Rule conforms to the
Definition of reasonable alternatives to removal
Refer to nonfederal applicant’s goals. This revision
Streamlining environmental management seems to be dead.
Review of nonfederal applicants’ proposals However, in
CEQ responded to objections to the revision by stating that it
We have not been provided with any evidence that the revision would impact the
Environmental review process, including timelines and that of
Further, the current regulation’s ambiguities supported such an approach
revisions. - Agency NEPA
Procedures.Also, the Final Rule
NEPA regulations removed ceiling provisions
Promulgated in 2020. These provisions restricted federal agencies from
Exercising stricter NEPA Review requirements than the in
CEQ regulations. CEQ argued, however, these provisions were invalid.
Federal agencies are unable to take on a wide variety of assignments due to this limitation.
Approaches to agency-specific NEPA procedures CEQ withdrew
These provisions explain how the change would foster
Better decisions, better community outcomes, and
NEPA’s goals are being met by innovation. CEQ
It was clarified that NEPA agency procedures must be adhered to
In accordance with the CEQ regulations agencies have discretion
Flexibility to develop procedures that go beyond the CEQ regulatory
Requirements, which enable agencies to address their particular programs.
The contexts they are placed in and the statutory mandates they provide
operate. - Effects or
Impacts.CEQ’s Final Regulation also
Revision of the effects definition
40 C.F.R. 1508.1(g), which restores the
Original meaning as defined in the 1978 regulations
Both effects and impacts are the same
- To clarify, the introductory paragraph should be revised.
Effects or impacts of changes
The human environment as a result of the proposed action
Alternatives that have direct effects
Indirect effects and cumulative
Effects that are reasonably predictable (i.e.
You can remove the phrase to get a fairly close causal relationship
relationship) - Direct effects are those that are described as such
occur at the same place and time, and indirect
Effects are those that occur later in time or further away
Identified as removed from distance and in conformity with the definition of
cumulative impact - Eliminating language that restricts the meaning of
Effects such as the need for a but
Remote in
Time
CEQ decided to keep the clause that are
Reasonably foreseeable in the definitions of effects/impacts
CEQ retained the remainder of the assets that it originally wanted to delete.
In an effort to be consistent, portions of the Proposed Rules were removed
This Administration’s policies are to be guided science
And to address climate change, environmental protection, and
Environment justice
Stakeholders currently undergoing NEPA review or embarking on
This is a journey that will take place over the next few months.
scope of their environmental review, and attention to reasonable
There are many other options. Many of the stayed and/or were not changed.
These aspects of the 2020 regulations are currently under litigation
they are likely to be moot, additional challenges may be presented to the Final Rule
arise. CEQ has not yet clarified whether the revised
Regulations will require agencies adjust NEPA reviews.
InResponse to commentsCEQ is, however, not available.
It should be noted that agencies have enough discretion to accept applications
Their existing NEPA procedures in a way that is consistent with
CEQ’s regulations. CEQ’s regulations.AnnouncementThe Final Rule
CEQ also pointed out that the rule won’t delay any projects.
Review are underway and will not take up additional time in the NEPA process.
None of these statements are intended to exclude federal agencies from being incorporated into the Constitution.
After the Final Rule is published, it is possible to adjust ongoing NEPA reviews
Effective 30 days following publication.
This article is meant to be a guide.
guide to the subject matter It is a good idea to seek specialist advice
Discuss your specific circumstances.
POPULAR ARTICLES FROM THE USA ON ENVIRONMENT
