193 



continuing or ad hoc, will not spring up and fight the dumping and 

 request a hearing. 



I wonder if we ought to have anything in our legislation to deal 

 with a situation of that type. 



Mr. Train. I think it would be perfectly appropriate to require pub- 

 lic notice of an application for a permit. 



This has been done, for example, under the Eefuse Act permit 

 program. 



The final regulations being issued by the Army, I think later this 

 week, on Wednesday, as a matter of fact, will spell out this in great 

 detail. 



I happen to have a copy of the Refuse Act regulations with me. The 

 requirement of publication extends to all of the information and data 

 pertaining to the application, and I would imagine that adminis- 

 tratively this Avill be required in the case of the clumping permits. 



Mr. DuPoNT. I would think that would be a sensible approach, and 

 then if you had to have a public notice, you could have some further 

 mechanism. 



Mr. Train. And, of course, there is as in all such cases, opportunity 

 for judicial review. 



Mr. DuPoNT. All right. 



Thank you. I have no further questions. 



Mr. EvEEETT. I have some further questions. 



Mr. DiNGELL. I am just curious about this. 



In regard to language in a piece of legislation of this type such as 

 "After notice and opportunity for hearing," Avould you have any ob- 

 jection to that kind of language with regard to proceeding with the 

 issuance of a dumping permit ? 



Mr. Train. I do not know that there is any problem in principle, 

 Mr. Dingell. 



There is no such statutory language pertaining to the dredge and fill 

 permit authority. 



Having said that, I would like to have the opportunity to expand on 

 that for the record. 



Mr. Dingell. We are running into a constitutional problem that 

 you deny the applicant a hearing. 



Anybody could have a constitutional question, and I suspect prob- 

 ably the Administrative Procedures Act requires it anyway, so it oc- 

 curs to me there probably would not be too much objection. 



Mr. Train. Mo. It may be in some cases superfluous, and in some 

 cases may raise a question because of rights under other legislation or 

 the constitution. 



Mr. Dingell. Let me ask this question. 



There is no intent anywhere in the legislation to repeal or modify 

 the National Environmental Policy Act in section 102(2) (C) thereof, 

 is there? 



Mr. Train. Mo, sir. 



Mr. Dingell. As I understand, 102(2) (C) requires the issuance 

 at this time, am I correct ? 



Mr. Train. Not in the way the National Environmental Policy Act 

 has been administered to date. I think, as you know, we have construed 

 the legislative history of the act as expressing an intent to exclude 



