Res 2001-006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ummunes ot EPA Comments The "predecision referrals" provision (40 CFR Part 150.4) enables any federal agency under NEP A to refer another agency's final EIS to CEQ during (he 30~day waiting period berore a lead agency can proceed \vith the action. On the other hand. Section 309 aurhorizes EP A to refer to CEQ a broader range of federal activities. not only actions for which EISs are prepared. The CEQ regulations (-1-0 CFR 1504, 1(b)) implement Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. adillo\vled2:inz that EPA has been assi2:ned more extensive review and referral aurhoritv than the other agencies (see Highlight C). . Within 25 davs after the lead a2:encv has made the final EIS available to the public. the referring agency must provide early notification to that agency about its intention. and make its referral in writing to CEQ. The lead agency, once it has received written notification from CEQ, is to respond in writing within 25 days. During that same period. other agencies and the public may submit written .~ornments to CEQ. Then CEQ may publish Findings and Recommendations: mediate between the disDuring aszencies: hold Dublic meerimrs or hearin2:s; refer irreconcilable disputes-to (he Executive 'Office of the -President for action: or. conclude I either that the issue is not of national importance or that insufficient information has been submitted upon which to base a decision. In the time since the referral process was formally established in 1973. aszencies have referred a total of 24 proposed federal actions to CEQ. Of these, EPA was responsible for 15. of which one was referred jointly with the Department of the Interior (DOn. (See Figure 2 for EPA regional environmental review offices.) So far, in no case has CEQ made a formal referral to the Office of the President. Most often. CEQ has issued Findinszs and Recommendations. In a few cases the lead aszencv has withdrawn the proposal. and in three cases CEQ determined that rhe issue was not a matter of national imponance. htrp:'.'es.enu.goy Deca oia OOOChL =~~re 1: E PA' S REG IOIIA L ; :CTI01I309 REViEWER S :.EGION 1: (617)918-1051 Cf're cfE....f~Re;WH 2:Feieral Eli? :::..-:on 1tA oz:;-cc.co01 :.EGION::; ; (2121 637.3.:J)4 ::.....,"::. ?ll.ran.-:::: & po _~ = zo B:oadw~,: :i"",YC!k.}rl lCC07.1CG6 :ECiION 3 : (215) 814-270.5 E:.....nr. ~ eran:h 15.5 0 Arc..lt $ t:e et ;:";..L.d.!l:r.bia. P A 1910S ?.EGION 4 : (40+) 552-%11 Cf're cfE.w. As "'15rne:tt 61 F"=-,:th $ teet Atktta, GA XJ303 REGION 5 : (312) 35.3,si94 :.,<.el2.! ActiVlUS~. 77West JaeloonBW. Ch: al;O, r L C09J 4-3:D7 FJ:GION 6: (214) 655-7451 Cf're - Fla.'="'l; & Co:ciir=. 1445 Rcss Av=.:.e, $ui:e 12:0 ~,r..{ 75~2733 REGION 7: (913) 5.51-7148 t:.f='l!rltal Re~ 726 Mi.'"Il'eSctaA~ru.e y....'lSa:S Cit-/, K.S 65101 REGION 8: eXlJ) 31~8 E=]'5tem~..cn~ m 18t.ltS!l1let, Suite jJ) l:.!rt'~ CO aJ2J2.2466 REGION 9: (41.5) 744-1534 I Off" 1: e ofFedeJ:al ActiVltl! s 7: E~wti= S b! et Sar.fu.rcisco, CA 94105 REGION 10: (IlS)5n8574 E"=~ & C:::rnrn:...~b!3 12:10 SinhA Ymle Seattia, WA 98101 In 1989. CEQ upheld EP A I S Section 309 referral authority. At issue was a DOl Bureau of Reclamation proposal to renew longterrn water contracts for irrigation operations of the Friant Unit in the Central Valley Project of California. The reason for referral was that no EIS had been prepared on the contract renewals, which individually and in the aggregate were likely to result in unsatisfactory environmental effects. In response, DOl questioned EP A I S right to challenge the agency I s decision that no EIS was needed. In rejecting that argument. CEQ established a precedent, that is, affIrmed that EP A may identify a major federal action significantly affecting the environment, even though the lead agency disagrees. A-42 50fi