as well as promote related research and exchange of information. Portions of the report appear below:

The Convention provides a concrete framework for the coordinated protection of migratory birds. The definition of "migratory birds" in article I has two distinct elements: a) those species or subspecies of birds which actually migrate between the United States and the Soviet Union, or b) species or subspecies of birds occurring in both countries which share common flyways or common breeding, feeding, wintering or moulting areas, creating a potential exchange of individual species among the populations from both countries. Species and subspecies of birds which are determined by means of reliable scientific evidence to conform to either of these categories are listed in one of the Appendices to the Convention. Article I also specifies that amendment of the list may be accomplished by agreement between the competent authorities of the respective parties to the Convention.

The general prohibitions regarding taking of migratory birds and exceptions thereto are set forth in article II. In addition to exceptions allowing the taking of migratory birds under permit for scientific, educational, propagational or other specific purposes not inconsistent with the principles of the Convention, there is also an exception permitting migratory birds to be taken during annual hunting seasons established by the respective parties. Another important exception in article II permits taking by "indigenous inhabitants" for "nutritional and other essential needs" in the State of Alaska and certain areas in the Soviet Union; such taking to be regulated at the discretion of the respective parties.

Article IV sets forth various provisions concerning the enhancement and protection of the habitats and ecosystems of migratory birds. The parties agree to undertake, to the extent possible, measures necessary to protect and enhance the environment of migratory birds and to prevent and abate the pollution or detrimental alteration of that environment. As examples of such measures the parties undertake:

(a) to provide early warning of substantial damage to migratory birds or their environment; (b) to control trade or establishment in the wild of animals or plants that may be harmful to migratory birds or their environment; and (c) to identify, list in one of the Appendices to the Convention, and subsequently protect areas under the jurisdiction of the respective parties which are of special importance to migratory birds. Further, the parties agree to identify areas of special importance to the conservation of migratory birds outside their respective jurisdictions. With regard to these areas the parties undertake to enforce the principles of this Convention with respect to persons under their respective jurisdiction and to publicize information about the significance of such areas.

The parties also agree to promote research on migratory birds, to coordinate national bonding programs, and to exchange scientific in

formation and publications related to migratory birds and their environment (Article VI).

Id. V-VI.

*

*

*

*

Deputy Secretary Christopher's report indicated that the Dept. of the Interior negotiated the Convention in coordination with the Dept. of State and that both agencies support its ratification.

'On p. VI of Ex. Print K, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., Deputy Secretary Christopher indicated in his report to the President that "at the conclusion of negotiations a Joint Declaration was signed wherein both States agreed to consider the expansion of the Convention to include additional Contracting Parties'" and that this "Joint Declaration is enclosed for the information of the Senate."

On November 1, 1977, Lynn A. Greenwalt, Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior, signed regulations revising the list of migratory birds contained in 50 CFR 10.13. The revised list contains all species covered by the conventions between the United States and Canada, Japan, and Mexico for the preservation of migratory birds. These conventions are the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds in the United States and Canada signed on August 16, 1916 (TS 628; 39 Stat. 1702; 12 Bevans 375; entered into force on December 7, 1916), the Convention between the United States and Japan for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction, and their Environment signed on March 4, 1972 (TIAS 7990; 25 UST 3329; entered into force on September 19, 1974), and amended on September 19, 1974 (TIAS 7990; 25 UST 3329), and the Convention between the United States and Mexico for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals signed on February 7, 1936 (TS 905; 50 Stat. 1311; 9 Bevans 1017; 178 LNTS 309; entered into force on March 15, 1937). As revised the list includes all species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. 703–711.

The regulations, prepared by Marshall L. Stinnett of the Division of Law Enforcement of the Department of the Interior, also eliminated the distinction between game and nongame species and amended the definition of "migratory bird" in 50 CFR 10.12 so that the term refers to any bird belonging to a species included in the list as well as any mutation or hybrid of any such species.

Portions of the supplementary information provided in the announcement of the regulations appear below:

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-711) [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] expressly protects any migratory bird inIcluded in the terms of the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds, August 16, 1916, United States-Great Britain (on behalf of Canada). . . ; the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals, February 7, 1936, United States-Mex

257-179 O - 79 - 56

ico.. ; or the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction, and Their Environment, March 4, 1972, United States-Japan. (16 U.S.C. 703). Regulations implementing the Act, which are found principally in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 10, 20, and 21, are likewise applicable to any bird covered by one of the three treaties (16 U.S.Č. 704). Accordingly, 50 CFR 10.12 currently defines "migratory birds" as ". . . all birds, whether or not raised in captivity, included in the terms of conventions between the United States and any foreign country for the protection of migratory birds. . .".

66

However, neither the Act nor its implementing regulations presently contain a definitive list of all the species covered by the treaties. . . .

[A]s adopted in this final rulemaking, the list of migratory birds in 50 CFR 10.13 now contains all species covered by the three treaties and consequently all species protected by the Act and its implementing regulations. The species classification was selected because it is the smallest taxon common to all three treaties.

As provided in the proposal, the list's current distinction between game and nongame species has been eliminated. Game birds are those for which open seasons are prescribed in 50 CFR Part 20. Since game birds are designated in Part 20, there is no need for a separate listing in Part 10. .

...

Concerning the definition of "migratory bird," this rulemaking amends 50 CFR 10.12 to define that term as any bird, whatever its origin and whether or not raised in captivity, which belongs to a species listed in section 10.13. The definition also provides that "migratory bird" includes mutations or hybrids of listed species, as well as parts, nests, eggs, or products. Because of the great difficulty in distinguishing mutations and hybrids from purebreds, coverage of the former two is essential to adequate enforcement of the Act and treaties. By including parts, nests, eggs, and products, section 10.12 merely restates the coverage of the Act (16 U.S.C. 703).

Accordingly, Part 10 of Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, is hereby amended as set forth below.

1. § 10.12 is amended by revising the definition of "migratory bird" to read as follows:

§10.12 Definitions.

"Migratory bird" means any bird, whatever its origin and whether or not raised in captivity, which belongs to a species listed in § 10.13. or which is a mutation or a hybrid of any such species, including any part, nest, or egg of any such bird, or any product, whether or not manufactured, which consists, or is composed in whole or part, of any such bird or any part, nest, or egg thereof.

2. § 10.13 is revised to read as follows:

§10.13 List of Migratory Birds.

The following is a list of all species of migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-711) and subject to the regulations contained in this subchapter. The species listed are those included in the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds, August 16, 1916, United States-Great Britain (on behalf of Canada), 39 Stat. 1702, T. S. No. 628; the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals, February 7, 1936, United States-Mexico, 50 Stat. 1311, T.S. No. 912; and the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction, and Their Environment, March 4, 1972, United StatesJapan, 25 U.S.T. 3329, TIAS No. 7990. The species are arranged alphabetically by groups, with the scientific name following the English language common name. All species of ducks are listed together under the heading "DUCKS”.

42 Fed. Reg. 59358-59359 (Nov. 16, 1977). The list of migratory birds contained in 50 CFR 10.13 may be found in 42 Fed. Reg. 59359-59362.

For further information concerning the U.S.-Japanese Migratory Bird Convention of Mar. 4, 1972, see the 1973 Digest, Ch. 11, § 1, pp. 427-428, and the 1974 Digest, Ch. 11, § 1, p. 710.

For further information concerning the U.S.-Canada Migratory Bird Convention of Aug. 16, 1916, see the 1973 Digest, Ch. 11, § 1, p. 427.

For further information concerning the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, see the 1974 Digest, Ch. 11, § 1, p. 611.

Environmental Impact

In a memorandum and order In the Matter of Babcock and Wilcox (License No. XR-118 and Docket No. 50-571), dated June 27, 1977, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) held that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., does not require the NRC "to prepare an individual environmental statement assessing the site specific impacts of the particular proposed nuclear reactor export on territory within the sovereign jurisdiction of a foreign government." Slip op. at 7. The NRC found that so far "as the NRC must consider . . . the impacts of such exports... on the global environment, the final generic statement on U.S. nuclear power export activities previously prepared by the Energy Research and Development Association (ERDA-1542, April 1976) satisfies all the NRC'S NEPA obligations." Id. The Commission's decision rejected the petition filed on behalf of Buergeraktion Atomschutz Mittelrhein e. V. (Citizen Action Group for Nuclear Protection, Middle Rhine, Ltd.) for leave to intervene and for a hearing concerning the application of Babcock and Wilcox filed on November 10, 1976, for authorization to export a 1200 megawatt pressurized water reactor to the Federal Republic of Germany. The NRC's memorandum and order also held that the petitioner lacked standing to intervene in the license

proceeding as a matter of right and found that a discretionary public hearing would not serve the public interest.

The NRC concluded that the export of the proposed nuclear facility was in full accord with the Additional Agreement for Cooperation between the United States and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) concerning Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy signed June 11, 1960 (TIAS 4650; 11 UST 2589; entered into force July 25, 1960), and that International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards will be applied to the Mulheim-Karlich Nuclear Power Station which will receive the reactor. The NRC found that license No. XR118 met all the standards of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and ordered that it be issued to the Babcock and Wilcox Company.

The NRC's decision concerning the international reach of the NEPA was based on the statute's language and legislative history as interpreted in light of general principles of international law, the practical difficulties of preparing impact statements on foreign sites, and advice from the Dept. of State. Portions of the opinion, issued by Marcus A. Rowden, Victor Gilinsky (concurring), and Richard T. Kennedy, follow:

It is petitioner's contention that the Commission cannot lawfully act upon Babcock & Wilcox's application until the Commission prepares, circulates for comment, and considers in its decisionmaking process a detailed environmental impact statement examining seven specific topics. Petitioner finds this requirement in section 102(2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2) (C). . . .

SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DETERMINATIONS

We hold that NEPA does not require us to prepare an individual environmental statement assessing the site specific impacts of the particular proposed nuclear reactor export on territory within the sovereign jurisdiction of a foreign government. Insofar as we must consider the impacts of the export on the United States and globally the environmental impact statement on the effects of United States nuclear export activities previously prepared by the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) satisfies all the Commission's NEPA obligations in the present matter. Also, because the petitioner has not presented a single contention appropriate for the Commission to consider, the petitioner lacks standing to intervene in the present licensing proceeding as a matter of right. Although in our discretion we could nonetheless order a public proceeding, if we deemed that one was warranted, we do not find that such a course would be in the public interest.

We have further determined that issuance of License No. XR-118 meets all applicable licensing requirements.

I. INTERNATIONAL REACH OF NEPA

A. NEPA And Its Legislative History

Neither the language nor the legislative history of NEPA unambiguously defines its application to Federal actions whose significant environmental impacts occur outside the United States. However, there seems little occasion to doubt that Congress' focus was on this nation and actions having impacts within U.S. borders. Thus, in delineating the purposes of NEPA, Congress emphasized