What You Should Know About EPA’s Recent Actions to Narrow Scope of NEPA Reviews

The principles described in Seven County promise faster regulatory processes, streamlined and targeted environmental assessments, an appropriate level of deference to agencies’ technical expertise, and more predictability and certainty for developers.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is now implementing that vision. In June, it undertook two significant actions designed to narrow the scope of its NEPA reviews and align EPA’s NEPA procedures with the Administration’s efforts to constrain, tailor, and depoliticize NEPA reviews, as described in executive orders, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA), and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 (OBBBA).

Specifically, EPA issued (1) a memorandum from Deputy Administrator David Fotouhi, directing EPA reviewers to focus reviews of other federal agencies’ Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) on EPA’s statutory responsibilities, and (2) a proposed rule to amend 40 C.F.R. Part 6, which governs EPA’s own NEPA procedures, incorporating hard page limits, completion deadlines, and recent statutory and judicial developments.

What These Changes Mean in Practice

• Shorter, faster, and more focused NEPA reviews. The Fotouhi Memo and revised NEPA procedures will tailor EPA’s NEPA reviews to the environmental impacts of the proposed action that are within EPA’s statutory authority, reducing the risk that NEPA implementation becomes a vehicle for broader policy disputes unrelated to the agency’s statutory responsibilities, and limiting opportunities for scope creep into attenuated or speculative impacts.

• Fewer opportunities for project delay. Page limits and hard deadlines for completing NEPA assessments will reduce the complexity of the NEPA process and offer greater certainty for review timelines, which can improve predictability for project planning and financing. 

• More favorable litigation posture. The Seven County “substantial deference” standard, which would be codified in EPA’s final rule, strengthens project proponents’ position in any litigation challenging the adequacy of a NEPA review.

Together, these actions represent the most sweeping overhaul of EPA’s NEPA implementation framework in decades. For the regulated community, these reforms promise shorter timelines, more streamlined reviews, and significantly reduced regulatory uncertainty.

EPA Review Under NEPA

NEPA establishes a national environmental policy for protection of the environment and requires all federal agencies to assess the environmental impact of their actions. Many of EPA’s permitting and regulatory decisions are already exempt from NEPA under the “functional-equivalence doctrine.” For projects that remain subject to NEPA, however, EPA plays an important role through review processes like Clean Air Act § 309 reviews and agency-comment procedures under NEPA itself, such as NEPA § 102(2)(C), which requires the lead agency to obtain comments from other agencies like EPA with relevant jurisdiction and expertise.

The Fotouhi Memo

The Fotouhi Memo formalizes a significant policy shift. Going forward, EPA will limit its comments on other agencies’ EISs to issues within EPA’s own statutory authorities, rather than providing broad commentary based on general environmental expertise. Before this directive, EPA staff could comment on any environmental impact within EPA’s expertise, regardless of EPA’s statutory authority. EPA reviewers will now be expected to focus on issues directly tied to EPA-administered environmental programs rather than broader environmental policy concerns. This falls in line with the Administration’s overarching policy of deregulation, as discussed previously here.

The memo establishes three principles for EPA comment letters: 

• Be focused. Limit comments to EPA’s authority under specifically enumerated statutes, e.g., the Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act (CWA), and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). 

• Be succinct. Avoid lengthy or overly broad commentary.

• Be helpful. Provide constructive guidance to the lead agency. 

The memo expressly prohibits comments referencing policy preferences not substantiated by an enumerated statutory authority and directs EPA to refrain from suggesting analysis not required by law.

For project sponsors, this means EPA is far less likely to raise broad environmental justice, climate, or cumulative-impact objections during review of another agency’s EIS. The memo also affirms EPA’s discretion not to comment at all and recommends early engagement through the scoping process.

The Proposed Rule: Hard Limits, New Tools, and Legislative Alignment

EPA’s Proposed Rule, “Update of Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and Assessing the Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions,” was issued for public comment on June 25 to amend 40 C.F.R. Part 6. The Proposed Rule implements the Administration’s directive in Executive Order 14154 that agencies reevaluate their NEPA-implementing regulations and aligns EPA’s procedures with the FRA, the OBBBA, and the Seven County decision. It imposes three categories of discipline on EPA’s NEPA process.

• Hard time and length limits. EISs, which currently average 661 pages, are capped at 150 pages (or 300 for actions of extraordinary complexity) and must be completed within two years. Environmental assessments are limited to 75 pages with a one-year deadline. These constraints will force EPA to focus on decision-relevant impacts rather than exhaustive cataloguing of downstream environmental effects beyond EPA’s statutory authority.

• Expanded tools to accelerate reviews. The rule creates a simplified process for establishing and adopting categorical exclusions (CEs) across agencies, potentially allowing infrastructure projects to benefit from CEs already established by USDA or other agencies. It permits project sponsors to prepare their own EAs and EISs under agency supervision (per NEPA § 107(f)) and authorizes payment of fees for expedited review deadlines (per OBBBA § 60026, NEPA § 112).

• Formal adoption of judicial and legislative changes. The rule removes references to rescinded CEQ NEPA regulations, eliminates environmental justice overlays (consistent with E.O. 14173), and codifies the Seven County principle that agencies need not trace attenuated chains of causation beyond their statutory responsibilities.

The Proposed Rule will be subject to a 30-day public comment period following its publication in the Federal Register. Project sponsors, developers, and industry stakeholders who wish to support these reforms — or shape their final form — should consider submitting comments during this window.

Key Takeaways for the Regulated Community

The Fotouhi Memo and the Proposed Rule are the latest iteration of the significant shift in federal NEPA practice recently set in motion. To keep pace with these advances, the regulated community may want to consider the following.

• Review existing projects in the NEPA pipeline to assess whether the new procedures, once finalized, may accelerate their timelines or reduce review scope.

• Submit comments on the Proposed Rule during the 30-day comment period supporting the practical benefits of page limits, deadlines, and sponsor-prepared documents for relevant operations.

• Evaluate opportunities to utilize the new categorical exclusion adoption process and sponsor-prepared EA/EIS provisions for upcoming projects.

• Engage early with EPA during the scoping process for projects that will undergo NEPA review under the new framework.

These reforms are part of a broader, administration-wide push to streamline NEPA review processes across agencies. The earliest related effort—the major consolidation of USDA’s NEPA procedures—is currently being challenged in the US District Court for the Northern District of California in Center for Biological Diversity v. USDA. As this trend continues, agencies must now focus more narrowly on statutory requirements, defined timelines, and decision-relevant impacts rather than expansive policy analyses. Project sponsors should expect this trend to continue well beyond these particular actions.

If you have questions about these developments, please reach out. Members of the firm’s Agricultural Technology, Environmental, and Energy & Cleantech groups regularly monitor regulatory developments impacting agriculture and the environment.