The Water Protector Legal Collective (WPLC), an Indigenous-led legal non-profit, opposes the EPA's proposed rule to update NEPA procedures. They argue the rule narrows the scope of environmental reviews, weakens mandatory Tribal consultation, and fails to adequately analyze the negative impacts on Tribal sovereignty and Treaty-protected resources.

The Petroleum Alliance of Oklahoma, a trade association representing the oil and gas industry, supports the proposed rule to update NEPA procedures. They argue that the rule will streamline federal reviews, reduce costs and delays for energy infrastructure, and improve interagency cooperation.

The American Water Works Association (AWWA) supports the proposed rule to streamline NEPA review processes for water infrastructure projects, provided that review quality is not degraded. They advocate for maintaining existing categorical exclusions for minor infrastructure upgrades and request that the EPA ensure adequate staffing and timeline flexibility to balance efficiency with thorough environmental assessment.

The Center for Biological Diversity, a non-profit conservation organization, opposes the EPA's proposed rule to amend NEPA procedures. They argue the rule weakens environmental protections, reduces transparency, limits public participation, and removes critical environmental justice considerations.

An environmental scientist opposes the proposed removal of NEPA Implementing Regulations, arguing that it will lead to rushed decisions, long-term environmental damage, and increased legal challenges. The commenter emphasizes that the regulations are essential for protecting wildlife, ensuring public input, and providing a structured framework for environmental review.

The Main Street Foundation's Center for Regulatory Analysis and Engagement (CRAE) supports the EPA's proposed updates to NEPA procedures, particularly those that align with recent Congressional reforms. They argue for a focus on proportionality, timely completion, and evidence-based categorical exclusions to reduce unnecessary delays and administrative burdens.

The commenter supports the EPA's proposed updates to NEPA procedures, arguing that the changes will align with recent laws and court decisions while improving efficiency and clarity. They also emphasize the importance of maintaining public accessibility and opportunities for public input.

Charlie Lorthioir, a geologist working in environmental remediation, opposes the proposed rule to amend NEPA procedures. The commenter argues that the changes weaken environmental protections, reduce oversight on climate change impacts, and disproportionately harm disenfranchised minority communities.

The commenter opposes the EPA's proposed updates to NEPA procedures, arguing that narrowing the scope of environmental reviews will overlook cumulative impacts and harm community protections. They advocate for maintaining a comprehensive approach that considers direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to ensure informed decision-making and transparency.