between the United States, Canada and Russia. The EA recognizes that an accident involving the American shipment of MOX might have “transboun-dary effects on Canadian populations,” raising the logical possibility that an accident involving the Russian MOX shipment might also have transboundary effects on American populations. Finally, the Russian shipment is logically and factually connected with the United States’ shipment because only together do they provide the MOX necessary for the Parallex Project. With these rather unique facts, the Court notes that this case deftly evades legal precedent. NEPA case law provides no easy answer to the question of if, and when, NEPA should be applied extraterri-torially. See Environmental Defense Fund Inc. v. Massey, 986 F.2d 528 (D.C.Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Natural Resources Defense Council v. NRC, 647
holding that nsf must comply with procedural requirements of nepa when considering incineration of food waste in antarctica because 1 the presumption against extraterritoriality does not apply because nepa is designed to regulate conduct occurring within the territory of the united states 2 the united states exercises legislative control over antarctica 3 any concerns about nepa interference with foreign policy were overstated because when foreign policy interests outweighed benefits of nepa compliance nepas requirements must yield and 4 broad language of the statute supports broad application of nepa requirements holding that plaintiffs bear the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that defendants have failed to adhere to the requirements of nepa holding that the detail that nepa requires in an eis depends upon the nature and scope of the proposed action holding that an agency may only tier to documents subject to nepa review and citing cases holding that birdwatchers interest in preventing adverse environmental effects from agency action fell squarely within the zone of interests of nepa