Federal agencies across the United States have embarked on a significant overhaul of their National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, introducing interim final rules (IFRs) that largely rescind previous mandates. This sweeping change signals a pivotal moment in environmental policy, shifting from stringent, detailed regulations to a more streamlined approach that combines simpler rules with non-binding guidance and manuals. The move aims to expedite federal project approvals and simplify compliance, responding to long-standing calls for greater efficiency in environmental reviews.
The driving force behind these recent changes is a concerted effort by federal agencies, following the lead of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), to accelerate and simplify the NEPA review process. While individual agency approaches may vary, a consistent theme emerges: a determined push to expedite NEPA compliance and facilitate quicker final decision-making for projects requiring federal permits, funding, or those occurring on federal lands. This collective action underscores a broader administrative objective to reduce bureaucratic hurdles and streamline project permitting.
The National Environmental Policy Act, enacted in 1970, originally relied on non-binding guidance for agency implementation. It wasn’t until 1977 that President Carter mandated CEQ to issue binding regulations to standardize procedures government-wide. These 1978 CEQ regulations remained largely unchanged for over four decades, with agencies issuing supplemental rules. However, NEPA has become a focal point of policy shifts across administrations, experiencing significant amendments under both the first Trump administration (2020) and the subsequent Biden administration (2024), the latter emphasizing climate change and environmental justice considerations.
Recent judicial decisions have also significantly influenced these NEPA regulatory changes. Several courts challenged CEQ’s authority to issue binding NEPA regulations, prompting the current administration to utilize the Administrative Procedure Act’s good cause exception to rescind CEQ’s binding rules via IFRs, bypassing typical notice-and-comment periods. This judicial pressure, alongside a pivotal Supreme Court decision affording agencies greater discretion in scoping NEPA reviews to focus on “the project at hand,” has empowered agencies to fundamentally rethink their approach to environmental reviews.
In response, federal agencies have swiftly issued a flurry of IFRs in recent weeks, effectively rescinding the majority of their longstanding NEPA regulations. Agencies have strategically retained binding regulations only for aspects most beneficial to project proponents, such as categorical exclusions, emergency procedures, and third-party preparation of NEPA documents. The bulk of their NEPA provisions have now been reclassified into separate, concurrently issued guidance documents. Importantly, many agencies, including the Departments of the Interior, Transportation, Army Corps of Engineers, and Energy, are accepting public comments on their IFRs and guidance until August 4, 2025.
Despite rescinding its binding regulations, CEQ issued a guidance template designed to assist agencies in updating their NEPA procedures without a disruptive gap. This template aims to facilitate the adoption of replacement procedures that expedite NEPA reviews. Agencies have rapidly adopted many of the template’s suggestions, particularly concerning page limits for environmental impact statements (EISs) and environmental assessments (EAs), as well as standardized definitions for “impacts,” “major federal actions,” and “non-federal actions.” They have also embraced similar language regarding project sponsors and analytical methodologies, promoting some level of consistency.
However, agencies retain discretion in applying the CEQ template, leading to some notable deviations. For instance, while the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) mandates analyzing negative environmental impacts of a no-action alternative in an EIS, agency interpretations vary; DOT guidance includes both beneficial and negative impacts, whereas USACE and DOE primarily consider negative impacts. Furthermore, new CEQ and agency guidance suggests agencies may not need to seek public comment on a draft EIS beyond statutory requirements, a departure from prior rules. This shift also extends to the borrowing of other agencies’ categorical exclusions, allowing reliance on another agency’s determination for similar actions.
The FRA codified deadlines of one year for EAs and two years for EISs, with project sponsors now able to reduce these times by paying 125% of anticipated NEPA document preparation costs. The CEQ guidance template pushes agencies to adhere to these deadlines even if analyses are incomplete, unless “fundamentally in breach of the spirit of NEPA’s requirements.” Agencies have adopted similar, yet slightly varied, language, emphasizing adherence unless the analysis is “inadequate” or “not sufficiently developed.” While these streamlining efforts are largely welcomed by project proponents, their novelty means they are untested in litigation. Agency staff will require time to adapt, a challenge compounded by federal workforce shrinkage. The shift away from binding regulations may also foster inconsistencies across agencies and within different offices, underscoring that agency approaches to environmental reviews remain in flux, potentially impacting future NEPA reviews and associated litigation.
Leave a Reply