d
:
}
19
Environmental Protective Reculatory Activities.
Section 5(d) of the CEQ guidelines indicates that
certain activities of the Environmental Protection
Agency do not constitute "actions" for purposes
of Section 102.
A number of agencies have been
confused by the reference in this section to
activities "concurred" in by EPA.
That reference
is not meant to permit agencies to avoid the 102
process merely because the views of the EPA have
somehow been secured with respect to environmental
aspects of proposed activities.
Additional confusion has been created by recent
. district court decisions, severely restricting the
applicability of §5(d) with respect to regulatory
activities taken_by agencies other than the EPA.
a
. See Kalur v...Resor, 3 ERC 1458 (D. _D.Cc. (1971);
a o— =
“=Bierva- Civbwv. Sarcent) © 3-ERC 19D5{WD=Wash.,.1972)=
aT
These cases -axe@-being. appealed.Ih.additionlegis-=*
~ lative proposalshave“been ‘intréduced seeking ° — =
Congressional clarification of some cf the issues
involved.
In this respect, agencies should be
aware of the testimony given by Chairman Train on
March 22, 1972 before the Fisheries and Wildlife
Conservation Subcommittee of the House Committee on
Merchant Marine and fisheries: .
-
i.
-_-—
foe
.
mo -
"
eee ee
“S205
t.
~ =
-
-
nes
-h
Qe
~ae
~
=
;
.
~
There has been some confusion about the
Council's views on the Kalur decision
and what clarification of NEPA's applicability to environmental protective regula-
tory activity is necessary.
In my opinion,
the most narrow possible legislative action,
addressed only to the water quality permit
program, is desirable. With respect to EPA's
other environmental protective regulatory
activities we are asking EPA to study and:
xevise its NEPA procedures to state specifi-
cally what activities and authorities are
included under Section 5(d) of our Guidelines
and the rationale for such inclusion.
2
ee
=m
TT ~ we
2