under NEPA: preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C) (1988). Accordingly, EPA has been held to be exempt from preparing such statements regarding permits for old sources of pollution. See, e.g., Pacific Legal Found, v. Quarles,. 440 F.Supp. 316, 320-21 & n. 2 (C.D.Cal.1977), aff'd sub nom., Kilroy v. Quarles, 614 F.2d 225 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 825, 101 S.Ct. 88, 66 L.Ed.2d 29 (1980). Although the courts have stopped short of holding the exemption to provide EPA with complete NEPA immunity under every possible circumstance, they have universally relied on legislative intent to adopt a much broader application than the bare language would suggest. See, e.g., Municipality of Anchorage v. United States, 980 F.2d 1320, 1328-29 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); see also, e.g., Webb v. Gorsuch, 699 F.2d
holding railroad rate exempt from state regulation holding that it is clear that the entire business of baseball is exempt from antitrust claims recognizing that the epa can consider the section 404b1 guidelines when acting under section 404c holding that the epa is also exempt from the requirement to consider alternatives under section nepa 102e holding complaint barred because it challenged the remedial action plan to the extent that it sought to enjoin epa from participating in the shipment of wastes from a superfund site in texas to alabama and to prevent epa from participating in any further remedial action at the site