ELR Citation: ELR 20998
No(s). s. 82-2634, 83-1072 (7th Cir. Aug 30, 1983)

The court holds that under §511 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) retains discretion to determine whether an environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for a sewage treatment project to be constructed with federal funds. The court rules that §511(c)(1), which except for sewage treatment grants and new source permits, exempts EPA actions under the FWPCA from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), does not mandate EISs for the nonexempt actions. No court has held to the contrary. Moreover, the legislative history makes clear that Congress intended to make the nonexempt EPA actions subject to NEPA, but not to require EISs for all such actions. The court also rules that appellants were not entitled to mailed notification of the public hearings on the treatment project under local or state law and that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in rejecting their motion under FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(3) to vacate the judgment below for fraud and misrepresentation.

Counsel for Appellants
Arthur DeBardeleben
DeBardeleben & Snyder
P.O. Box 280, Park Falls WI 54552
(715) 762-3911

Counsel for Appellee
John R. Byrnes, U.S. Attorney
P.O. Box 112, Madison WI 53701
(608) 264-5158

Before CUDAHY and POSNER, Circuit Judges, and ROSENN, Senior Circuit Judge.^*