The extent to which the environmental impact statement (EIS) requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)¹ apply to federal actions abroad has become one of the most controversial NEPA questions now concerning the federal courts and agencies. On one hand, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which has been directed by President Carter to promulgate regulations governing compliance with NEPA by all federal agencies, favors comprehensive application.² On the other, several federal agencies whose activities involve foreign countries argue that NEPA does not apply to all foreign activities of federal agencies.³ Finally, the American business community warns that the ability of the United States to compete in overseas markets will be drastically eroded if governmentally sponsored or approved exports are subject to NEPA.⁴

The geographic scope of the controversy has been carefully drawn. There is little disagreement that if a federal activity abroad also affects the United States or the "global commons" (that area such as outer space or the oceans not within another nation's sovereignty), then preparation of an EIS under §102(2)(C) of NEPA is required. The essence of the controversy is NEPA's applicability if a federal action's environmental effects are limited to areas within the sovereign jurisdiction of one or more foreign countries. A corollary to this question is whether an agency with a program of similar activities in many countries must prepare a site-specific EIS for each individual project as well as a broad generic impact statement for the entire program.