-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
-