Opinion ID: 312185
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: request for environmental impact statement

Text: 30 Duquesne and St. Joe have requested that this Court order the EPA to prepare an environmental impact statement in connection with their administrative action, conforming with sections 102(C) and (D) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 42 Several courts have examined the question of NEPA's applicability to the EPA. 43 All have concluded that to require an agency charged with protecting the environment with the obligation to file a statement explaining the environmental impact of its decisions would be redundant. 31 The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia stated in International Harvester: 32 Although we do not reach the question whether EPA is automatically and completely exempt from NEPA we see little need in requiring a NEPA statement from an agency whose raison d'etre is the protection of the environment: . . . 44 33 The EPA, on the remand in International Harvester, was required, inter alia, to produce a decision setting forth its reasoning for granting or denying relief, the same material from which a NEPA statement would be composed. As the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia noted, the requirement of an impact statement in the circumstances would be a hollow formalism. 34 In Getty Oil it is clear that this Court was deciding that if a NEPA statement were required, Getty had not commenced the appropriate proceeding to force one: Even if we were to agree . . . that EPA is subject to the NEPA requirement, such an issue is properly raised in a section 307 proceeding. 45 Basically, the same conclusion was reached by the district court in Getty Oil. 46 35 Appalachian Power, however, relying on the opinion in Getty Oil, squarely held that NEPA was not applicable to the action of the Administrator in approving a state implementation plan. 47 36 Presented with the square holding of the Fourth Circuit, and the logically appealing pronouncements of this Court, the District of Columbia Circuit Court, and the District Court in Delaware, we hold that, in approving the state implementation plans, the Administrator is not required to meet the impact statement requirements of the NEPA-certainly in the context of this case.