-i2i"!; Environmental Defense Fund v. TY£, 468 F.23 Llit- [th Tix. 2372); Scherr v. Volpe, 466 F.2d 1027, 1034 (7th ninzgside-Lenox Park Association v. Yoloe, Riz, Le- %2.D.38. 334 F.Supp. 1971) (compliance with § 102 of the NEPA is recuired 2S ti 2an srgoineg Tederal project on which substantial actions are be taxen, regardless of the date of ‘critical’ f ne erotect).8 See also Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee Imposes Affirmstive ys The Trusteeship Agreement | -( { ~il. federal approval Tcligazions Yoon The Defendants To Restore The recris 22 Bixini To Their Lands, To Protest Their Health And To Provide For Their Scoial and Educational Advancenent ani Thair Economic Advancement And Self-Sufficiency -2e Trusteeshirc agreement for the Former Japanese Mandated Islands, July 2, 25°57, 21 Ssat. mao othe Security provisions 3361, T.I.4.S. No. 1665 was executed by the United Council of the United Nations pursuant of tne United Nations territories. to the Charter dealing with non-self-—governing Article 73 of the United Nations Charter, treating non~self- zZcVerning territories in gensral, provides, in part: ligmcears of tne United Nations which have or assume rasronsitbiliities for the administration of territories "; Ztmawnat diffsarent analysis is sometimes ensloyed in tonsitering orovects where the federal involvement is substantially limitei tt Brericval cf concept or design, and funding. Under such aivaumetances, ome 2turts seek to determine the “critical” federal acrtitn orm lezal sv venvs which committed the federal zovernment to etvtrovel ani funding 77 the project, considering this the only "major Fectert? aoation’ wninh takes place with rescect to sucn a@ project. Dee Fitinswoad Tommunity Ilub v. Volpe, 906 F.2d 1325 (9th Cir. (lok. ins if aver 7 8 a TIycver cetermines tne In Pir une croject i. = melcor federei action after che “eriticzal" action or Tor the ongoing croject, Timcrrow v. Remney, Lzsu 1974) impact of a Bizshway and is Ever undar minis approach nowever rafter fedcer2l NEPA is triggered. See San rrancisco 472 F.2d 1021 (9th Cir. 1973)(eritical date, action in usual urban renewal project is and execurian LD lian and granv ctontract, but a subsequent amendment cnanging ine .rcieet from an industrial park “a' ir Teiersi acevion, to a neighbornood development is Tne analysis reflected in these cases is a Loiitiirite for tne Bixinl resettlement proiect, wnicn nas invslved "etl otirticicicticn in tre |ttusl execution oP tte prefea2t 9052122 Pull -