Update of Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and Assessing the Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions
Key claim: The EPA is proposing to amend its NEPA implementing procedures to create efficiencies, harmonize with other federal agencies, incorporate statutory changes from the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 and One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025, align with Executive Order 14154, and reflect the Supreme Court’s Seven County Infrastructure Coalition decision.
Abstract
(Proposed Rule · Environmental Protection Agency) The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is proposing amendments to its procedures for implementing the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). This proposed rule would also include technical amendments to the Agency’s procedures to improve clarity, correct errors, and update office names and titles. This proposed rule would amend EPA’s NEPA implementing procedures by incorporating proposed revisions to create efficiencies in the implementation of NEPA and to harmonize EPA’s NEPA Implementing Procedures with other federal agencies’ procedures, where possible. The proposed rule also incorporates the amendments to NEPA enacted through the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA) and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 (OBBBA); makes changes consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14154, Unleashing American Energy; makes changes based on the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) subsequent rescission of its NEPA regulations; and to reflect the Supreme Court’s May 29, 2025 decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, 605 U.S. 168(2025) (hereinafter Seven County).
Why this matters
NEPA drives the timeline, cost, and scope of environmental review for federal actions including permits and rulemakings; changes to EPA’s procedures affect how quickly and how thoroughly EPA-issued permits, grants, and rules are reviewed for environmental impact. Incorporating the Seven County ruling and recent statutory amendments could narrow the analytical scope (e.g., limiting indirect/upstream effects), reducing litigation exposure and permitting delays but drawing concerns about diminished environmental scrutiny.