NEPA Overhaul Aims to Speed Up Environmental Reviews

Posted on 7/27/2020 by Roger Marks and Anthony Cardno, CHMM

Signed into law on January 1, 1970, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires Federal agencies  of the US government to assess the environmental impact of their activities before issuing permits, adopting federal land management actions, or building highways or other publicly owned projects.  

The 1970 law created the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which wrote the first regulations to implement NEPA in 1978 (found in 40 CFR 1500--1508). 

What’s New in the Final Rule?

Each update in the NEPA Final Rule fits into one of three categories, more or less:
  • Restructuring rules that re-organize existing environmental regulations to be easier to read, with less repetition and improved grammar.
  • Changes to definitions that clarify the meaning of regulatory terms, add new definitions, and strike outdated ones
  • “Actual new stuff” that substantively changes or adds to facility’s environmental responsibilities under NEPA.
Read on for more insight about what’s in the Final Rule. Read more about NEPA on EPA’s website.

Restructuring Rules in NEPA

The 1978 NEPA regulations were dense, tangled, repetitive, endlessly self-referential, and, simply put, very hard to understand and apply.   

The new Final Rule re-organizes sections of the regulations to provide a more logical “flow,” group connected concepts together, and limit repetition. Plus (grammarians rejoice!) they changed occurrences of passive voice to active voice to make the regulations easier to read.

New and Updated NEPA Definitions  

A set of clear definitions is the backbone of every regulatory program. As EHS professionals know, words often take on different meanings depending on the set of regulations you’re looking at.

To prevent confusion, the meaning of words should be clear and consistent across the full set of rules.
The Final Rule adds and clarifies definitions found in 40 CFR 1508 for a list of terms, among them "Authorization," "Lead Agency." "Participating Agency,"  “Reasonably Foreseeable,” “Significantly,” and many others.  

New and Revised NEPA Requirements

This rule goes beyond regulatory housekeeping to include substantial changes and updates to the requirements for Federal agencies.   

The goal here is to shorten the amount of time it takes to complete legally required environmental reviews before a government project—like new highway construction, for example—can begin.

To that end, the Final Rule:

Sets page and time limits for required environmental reviews, including:
  • Environmental Assessments (EA)
  • Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
  • Conditional exclusions; and
  • Findings of No Significant Impact
Streamlines the way different Federal agencies work with each other on single or related projects.

Adds standards by which “interested parties” like other Federal agencies, state and tribal governments, and private individuals and businesses can offer input during various environmental review processes.

Adds requirements for agencies that rely on third parties or contractors to write/perform environmental reviews like EAs, EISs, etc.  

For more details, read the Final Rule in full in the July 16 Federal Register

Before this month's Final Rule, the NEPA regulations had not changed since 1978. Still, NEPA kept the US legal system busy in the forty-plus years since it became law. The Supreme Court has issued seventeen decisions concerning the law in that time, and US district and appellate courts interpret NEPA more than one hundred times per year, according to the preamble to the Final Rule.  

Earlier efforts to modernize and simplify NEPA include presidential memoranda and extensive guidance.

Tags: environmental compliance, environmental review, NEPA, permits

Find a Post

Compliance Archives

Lion - Quotes

Excellent. I learned more in two days with Lion than at a 5-day program I took with another provider.

Francisco Gallardo

HES Technician

Excellent course. Very interactive. Explanations are great whether you get the questions wrong or right.

Gregory Thompson

Environmental, Health & Safety Regional Manager

The online course was well thought out and organized, with good interaction between the student and the course.

Larry Ybarra

Material Release Agent

The course was very informative and presented in a way that was easily understood and remembered. I would recommend this course.

Jeffrey Tierno

Hazmat Shipping Professional

Lion courses always set the bar for content, reference, and practical application. Membership and access to the experts is an added bonus.

John Brown, CSP

Director of Safety & Env Affairs

I like Lion's workshops the best because they really dig into the information you need to have when you leave the workshop.

Tom Bush, Jr.

EHS Manager

My experience with Lion classes has always been good. Lion Technology always covers the EPA requirements I must follow.

Steven Erlandson

Environmental Coordinator

I was able to present my scenario to the instructor and worked thru the regulations together. In the past, I attended another training firm's classes. Now, I have no intention of leaving Lion!

Diana Joyner

Senior Environmental Engineer

Best instructor ever! I was going to take my DOT training w/a different provider, but based on this presentation, I will also be doing my DOT training w/Lion!

Donna Moot

Hazardous Waste Professional

The instructor clearly enjoys his job and transmits that enthusiasm. He made a dry subject very interesting and fun.

Teresa Arellanes

EHS Manager

Download Our Latest Whitepaper

Use this guide to spot which tanks and substances are regulated under EPA's Underground Storage Tank program, and which are excluded as of October 2018.

Latest Whitepaper

By submitting your phone number, you agree to receive recurring marketing and training text messages. Consent to receive text messages is not required for any purchases. Text STOP at any time to cancel. Message and data rates may apply. View our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.