BONSAL, Senior District Judge:
The intervenors in these consolidated cases,, several corporations and trade associations (collectively “the Companies”),1 appeal from orders of the United States District Court, Flannery, J., (1) denying their motion to vacate or, alternatively, to revise a settlement agreement (“the Agreement”) previously approved by the district court, and (2) denying the cross-motion of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “the Agency”) and its Administrator to modify the Agreement due to changed circumstances. The issue presented by this appeal, as formulated in our earlier opinion, Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Cos-tie, 636 F.2d 1229, 1259 (D.C.Cir.1980),2 is whether the “settlement agreement impermissibly infringes on the discretion Congress committed to the Administrator to make certain decisions under the [Clean Water Act].” For the reasons hereinafter stated, we hold that the Agreement does not impermissibly infringe on the Administrator’s discretion and accordingly we affirm the orders of the district court.
Background
The facts are set forth in some detail in our prior decision, 636 F.2d at 1234-38, familiarity with which is assumed. Briefly, the Agreement was entered into by the original parties3 to these consolidated cases in settlement of the plaintiffs’ claims that EPA had failed to carry out its statutory duty to implement certain provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. (1976), known in its amended form as the Clean Water Act (“CWA” or “the Act”).4 Following negotiations between the parties, the proposed settlement agreement was submitted to the district court, which held hearings and received comments from the intervenor Companies, which opposed it. The Agreement was authorized and executed for the government by both EPA and the Department of Justice. After making some changes in the agreement, on June 9, 1976 the court entered a “Final Order and Decree” (“the Decree”) approving it as a “just, fair, and equitable resolution of the issues raised.” Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Train, 8 Env’t Rep.Cas. (BNA) 2120, 2122 (D.D.C.1976). No appeal was taken from the Decree. Therefore, the issue of whether, in a general sense, the district court acted properly in entering the June 9, 1976 Decree is not now before us.5
The Agreement contains a detailed program for developing regulations to deal with the discharge of toxic pollutants under the CWA. It required EPA to promulgate guidelines and limitations governing the discharge by 21 industries of 65 specified [83]*83pollutants. It also mandated the use of certain scientific methodologies and decision-making criteria by EPA in determining whether additional regulations should be issued and whether other pollutants should be included in the regulatory scheme. It did not specify the substantive result of any regulations EPA was to propose and only required EPA to initiate “regulatory action” for other pollutants identified through the research program. The regulations envisaged by the Agreement were, after full notice and comment, to be promulgated in phases by December 31,1979 and the industries affected were to comply with them by June 30, 1983.
The district court explained in its Decree that the Companies would be free to influence the content of the proposed regulations by participating in the rulemaking proceedings and then could attack the legality of any final regulations in court. 8 Env’t Rep.Cas. at 2121. The court also emphasized that EPA and NRDC had modified the Agreement to make clear that the court would not review EPA’s “substantive judgments” under it. Id.
When EPA’s implementation of the Agreement failed to meet the deadlines imposed therein, NRDC moved to have the Administrator held in contempt. Soon after, the Companies moved to vacate the Decree on the grounds that the 1977 Amendments to what became known as the CWA had superseded the Decree and rendered it moot, and that the Decree violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice and comment provisions. EPA and NRDC then jointly moved for an order modifying the Decree in settlement of NRDC’s contempt motion. On March 9, 1979 the district court modified the Decree according to EPA’s and NRDC’s request and denied the Companies’ motion to vacate the Decree. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Costle, 12 Env’t Rep.Cas. (BNA) 1833 (D.D.C.1979). In general, the modifications granted EPA more time and flexibility to implement the requirements of the Decree in exchange for requiring EPA to provide NRDC more detailed information regarding implementation. Several of the Companies appealed the district court’s decision, which we affirmed. We found that Congress did not intend the 1977 Amendments to supersede the Decree, that the district court continued to have the power to enforce the Decree, and that the modifications in the Decree were not “rules” within the meaning of the APA for which EPA had to provide notice and comment. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Costle, supra, 636 F.2d at 1244, 1251, 1255-56. However, we remanded the case for the district court to consider whether the settlement agreement impermissibly infringes on the discretion Congress committed to the EPA Administrator to make certain decisions under the CWA. Id. at 1258-59.
On remand, the Companies filed a motion to vacate or, alternatively, to revise the Decree on the ground that it impermissibly infringed upon the Administrator’s discretion under the CWA. EPA filed a cross-motion to modify the Decree in light of changed circumstances, seeking to extend certain deadlines and to delete from the Decree those provisions compelling the performance of “discretionary” actions by the Agency.
In a memorandum opinion filed February 5, 1982, the district court found that the Agreement “does not impermissibly infringe upon the discretion accorded to the EPA Administrator by Congress.” Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Gorsuch, 16 Env’t Rep.Cas. (BNA) 2084, 2090 (D.D.C.1982). Accordingly, it entered an order on the same date denying the Companies’ motion. The district court based its decision on five factors. First, it stressed the breadth of a district court’s equitable power to give effect to remedial statutes. Second, it concluded that the Decree was “process” rather than “result” oriented. Third, it pointed out that the parties had participated extensively in formulating the Decree. Fourth, it noted that it had taken a flexible approach to fashioning the Decree, modifying it a number of times in response to objections raised by the parties. Finally, it found that Congress had the Decree in mind when it enacted the 1977 Amend[84]*84ments to the CWA and “clearly approved of its procedures.” Id. at 2087-89.
On May 7,1982 the district court issued a second order, denying EPA’s cross-motion and directing the Agency to submit proposed schedules for promulgating within one year all those regulations envisaged by the Agreement which had not yet been promulgated.6 The Companies have appealed from the district court’s first order and from that part of the second order which denied EPA’s request to delete those portions of the Decree allegedly involving matters entrusted to the Administrator’s discretion under the CWA. EPA has not appealed the denial of that request.
Discussion
The February 5, 1982 Order
The Companies’ principal contentions on appeal are that: (1) the district court had no power to approve the provisions of the Agreement which direct EPA to take actions not required to remedy specific violations of the CWA; and (2) these provisions impermissibly infringe on the EPA Administrator’s statutory discretion by precluding him from taking action otherwise open to him under the CWA.
I.
Underlying both these contentions is the distinction drawn by the Companies between “statutory” and “nonstatutory” provisions in the Agreement. They maintain that certain provisions in the Agreement flow directly from specific requirements in the Act and hence are “statutory.” As to the presence of these provisions in the Decree, the Companies raise no objection.7 However, they assert that other provisions, which they refer to as “non-statutory,” are not mandated by the Act and thus should have been excluded from the Decree by the district court. The Companies admit that the “non-statutory” provisions could have been included in the Agreement — but not in the Decree.
Amongst the so-called “non-statutory” provisions are ones which “impose criteria not prescribed in the statute for EPA’s regulations.” Br. for Appellants at 17. Here the Companies cite inter alia Paragraph 8 of the Decree, which sets forth criteria for EPA’s decision to exclude “specific pollutants” or “point source categories” from proposed regulations.8 Under the CWA, EPA is required to analyze various factors [85]*85m the course of developing toxic pollutant regulations. Section 307(a)(1) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1317(a)(1), provides that:
The Administrator in publishing any revised list [of toxic pollutants subject to regulation] shall take into account toxicity of the pollutant, its persistence, degradability, the usual or potential presence of the affected organisms in any waters, the importance of the affected organisms, and the nature and extent of the effect of the toxic pollutant on such organisms.
The Companies contend that because the criteria specified in Paragraph 8 of the Decree are more extensive than those set out in section 307(a)(1) of the Act, the criteria should not be incorporated in the Decree.
Also alleged to be “non-statutory” are provisions which “create programs, not found in the statute, which EPA must now undertake.” Br. for Appellants at 18. Here the Companies cite inter alia Paragraph 4(c) of the Decree, which requires EPA to “identify and study” additional pollutants (aside from the 65 listed ones) for which pretreatment standards may be necessary. Paragraph 4(c) describes in detail how EPA is to fulfill this requirement by implementing a study program to identify other pollutants for which EPA should initiate “regulatory action.”9 Paragraph 4(c) [86]*86appears to leave the scope, substance and particulars of “regulatory action” to EPA’s discretion, as subject to the rulemaking process. Section 307(b) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1317(b), which discusses pretreatment standards, states only that EPA must promulgate such standards “[n]ot later than ninety days after ... publication [of proposed regulations], and after opportunity for public hearing .... ” The Companies complain that the program called for in Paragraph 4(c) “is [not] mentioned in, much less required by, the Act.” Br. for Appellants at 19.
NRDC and EPA do not dispute that such provisions as Paragraphs 4(c) and 8 in the Decree are not mandated by the CWA. However, they contend that the programs and criteria specified in the Decree are consistent with the Act and do not bind the Agency to any particular substantive outcome. Instead, the programs and criteria establish analytic processes that EPA must employ in formulating proposed standards. NRDC and EPA both believe that there is a sufficient nexus between the Decree and the Act, even if every provision in the Decree is not derived from a particular requirement of the CWA.
II.
The Companies’ first contention, regarding the district court’s power to approve the “non-statutory” provisions of the Decree, requires a brief discussion of the prineiples of law government consent decrees. In United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673, 681-82, 91 S.Ct. 1752,1757, 29 L.Ed.2d 256 (1971), the Supreme Court provided the following analysis;
Consent decrees are entered into by parties to a case after careful negotiation has produced agreement on their precise terms. The parties waive their right to litigate the issues involved in the case and thus save themselves the time, expense, and inevitable risk of litigation. Naturally, the agreement reached normally embodies a compromise; in exchange for the saving of cost and elimination of risk, the parties each give up something they might have won had they proceeded with the litigation. Thus the decree itself cannot be said to have a purpose; rather the parties have purposes, generally opposed to each other, and the resultant decree embodies as much of those opposing purposes as the respective parties have the bargaining power and skill to achieve.
(Footnote omitted). Elsewhere the Supreme Court has stated that
[c]onsent decrees and orders have attributes both of contracts and of judicial decrees or, in this case, administrative orders. While they are arrived at by negotiation between the parties and often admit no violation of law, they are motivated by threatened or pending litigation and must be approved by the court or administrative agency.
[87]*87United States v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 420 U.S. 223, 236 n. 10,95 S.Ct. 926,934 n. 10, 43 L.Ed.2d 148 (1975). While construction of a consent decreeds essentially a matter of contract law, see United States v. Armour & Co., supra; Sportmart, Inc. v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 601 F.2d 313, 316 (7th Cir.1979), the decree itself must be treated “as a judicial act.” United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 115, 52 S.Ct. 460, 462, 76 L.Ed. 999 (1932). Finally, a district court’s “authority to adopt a consent decree comes only from the statute which the decree is intended to enforce.” System Federation No. 91, Railway Employees’ Department, AFL-CIO v. Wright, 364 U.S. 642, 651, 81 S.Ct. 368, 373, 5 L.Ed.2d 349 (1961).
The district court referred to the Agreement as a “classic settlement.” 8 Env’t Rep.Cas. (BNA). at 2122. The Agreement certainly follows the principles laid down in United States v. Armour and United States v. ITT Continental Baking, supra. By its terms, EPA achieved its objective of basing the regulation of toxic discharges on a technology-based, industry-by-industry approach instead of a health-based, pollutant-by-pollutant method. As we have previously noted, the technology-based approach “marked a change in EPA’s regulatory strategy” and “offered substantial advantages over the old” one. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Gostle, supra, 636 F.2d at 1235-36. In addition, as the district court stated, the Agreement represents a compromise for NRDC insofar as it accepted that EPA could regulate toxic pollutants under section 304 of the Act rather than under the health-based effluent standards called for by section 307, as NRDC’s complaint had alleged. 8 Env’t Rep.Cas. (BNA) at 2122. At the same time, NRDC also benefited from the Agreement, which bound EPA to promulgate regulations without specifying the exact substance of those regulations according to a fixed timetable for a specified list of pollutants.
Nevertheless, the Companies contend that, while EPA was free to dispose of this litigation by entering into the Agreement with NRDC, the district court had no authority to enforce those parts of it which “go beyond statutory requirements.” Br. for Appellants at 26. They assert that since, under System Federation No. 91 v. Wright, supra, the court’s authority to approve the Agreement “comes only” from the CWA, each provision in the Agreement must be necessary to remedy a specific violation of the Act. In other words, the district court was permitted only to remedy those wrongs which it could specifically identify.
We think that this view of a court’s power to adopt a consent decree is unduly narrow. The rule contended for by the Companies depends on an overly literal reading of System Federation No. 91 v. Wright. The statement that a district court’s “authority to adopt a consent decree comes only from the statute which the decree is intended to enforce,” 364 U.S. at 651, 81 S.Ct. at 373, means only that the focus of the court’s attention in assessing the agreement should be the purposes which the statute is intended to serve, rather than the interests of each party to the settlement. Before approving the settlement in this case, the district court held hearings and solicited comments, and concluded that the Agreement was “a just, fair, and equitable resolution of the issues raised” in these cases, 8 Env’t Rep.Cas. (BNA) at 2122, and that it was “consistent with Congress’ intent that water pollution be curbed by 1983.” Id. The fact that certain provisions in the Decree track the language of the Act more closely than others is irrelevant, so long as all are consistent with it. The Companies’ suggested approach would require the court to undertake a close examination of each part of the Decree in order to establish that it was responsive to a specific violation of the Act. This would require, in turn, detailed findings that the Act had been violated in various ways.
However, the long-standing rule is that a district court has power to enter a consent decree without first determining that a statutory violation has occurred. Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 311, [88]*88327, 48 S.Ct. 311, 315, 72 L.Ed. 587 (1928).10 The court’s duty when passing upon a settlement agreement is fundamentally different from its duty in trying a ease on the merits. As we have previously held, “prior to approving a consent decree a court must satisfy itself of the settlement’s ‘overall fairness to beneficiaries and consistency with the public interest’.” United States v. Trucking Employers, Inc., 561 F.2d 313, 317 (D.C.Cir.1977), quoting United States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Industries, 517 F.2d 826, 850 (5th Cir.1975). In a more recent case, the Seventh Circuit has explained the nature of the inquiry to be undertaken by the district court:
The trial court in approving a settlement need not inquire into the precise legal rights of the parties nor reach and resolve the merits of the claims or controversy, but need only determine that the settlement is fair, adequate, reasonable and appropriate under the particular facts and that there has been valid consent by the concerned parties.
Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. v. Village of Arlington Heights, 616 F.2d 1006, 1014 (7th Cir.1980); accord United States v. City of Miami, Florida, 664 F.2d 435, 441 (5th Cir.1981) (en banc); Franks v. Kroger Co., 649 F.2d 1216, 1224 (6th Cir.1981); Patterson v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York, 514 F.2d 767, 771 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 427 U.S. 911, 96 S.Ct. 3198, 49 L.Ed.2d 1203 (1976); United States v. Ketchikan Pulp Co., 430 F.Supp. 83, 86 (D.Alaska 1977); see also Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 88 n. 14, 101 S.Ct. 993, 998, 67 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981); Note, The Consent Judgment as an Instrument of Compromise and Settlement, 72 Harv.L. Rev. 1314, 1316 (1959).
Furthermore, it is precisely the desire to avoid a protracted examination of the parties’ legal rights which underlies consent decrees. Not only the parties, but the general public as well, benefit from the saving of time and money that results from the voluntary settlement of litigation. Thus, “[voluntary settlement of civil controversies is in high judicial favor.” Autera v. Robinson, 419 F.2d 1197, 1199 (D.C.Cir.1969).
In light of these settled principles governing judicial approval of settlement agreements, we see no merit to the distinction drawn by the Companies between “statutory” and “non-statutory” provisions of the Decree. The district court’s findings that the Agreement was consistent with the purpose of the CWA and that it fairly resolved the controversy demonstrate that it conscientiously performed the duty of a court when asked to approve a settlement agreement. The focus of the court’s inquiry throughout was the Act itself, as System Federation No. 91 requires. As the court determined, and as EPA itself now urges, the Decree as a whole provides an effective means of carrying out EPA’s obligations under the Act, and one that is acceptable to both sides in this dispute. It therefore was [89]*89clearly within the district court’s power to enter the Decree.
The Companies wanted the district court to do more than test whether the Decree complied with the purpose of the Act. The Companies in effect wanted the district court to circumscribe EPA’s discretion to implement the CWA by stating that EPA could not enter into this Decree to settle a lawsuit attacking EPA’s actions under the Act. If the court had done so, the practical effect would have been to limit EPA’s discretion to move forward with its preferred CWA toxic regulation program, which the Decree promoted and protected. We believe the court’s role should be more restrained.11
III.
The Companies’ second contention is that the Decree impermissibly infringes on EPA’s discretion by dictating the approach to be taken by the Agency in promulgating regulations under the CWA. They claim that “the establishment of criteria and the development of programs within the confines of its regulatory obligations are fundamental aspects of the Agency’s discretion under the Act. In the absence of the Decree, EPA could in the exercise of this discretion choose whether or not to establish the criteria and programs which the Decree mandates.” Reply Br. for Appellants at 21.
The Companies rely heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 98 S.Ct. 1197, 55 L.Ed.2d 460 (1978), as support for their argument. In particular, they cite the following passage as evidence that a court has no power to specify the procedures to be utilized by an agency: “The court should .. . not stray beyond the judicial province to explore the procedural format or to impose upon the agency its own notion of which procedures are ‘best’ or most likely to further some vague, undefined public good.” Id. at 549, 98 S.Ct. at 1214. The Companies argue that both the Supreme Court and this court have repeatedly emphasized their intention to prohibit interference by the judiciary with procedural matters committed by statute to an agency’s discretion. See, e.g., Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 104, 101 S.Ct. 999, 1009, 67 L.Ed.2d 69 (1981); Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 312-13, 99 S.Ct. 1705, 1723, 60 L.Ed.2d 208 (1979); Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 391-92 (D.C.Cir.1981); Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Train, 510 F.2d 692, 711-12 (D.C.Cir.1975).
EPA and NRDC advance the same reasons for affirming the district court’s decision that were relied on by the district court itself. Conceding that the decree infringes to some extent on EPA’s discretion under the CWA, they contend that on the facts of this case the level of infringement is permissible. First, they assert that the Decree, far from prescribing any substantive outcome, merely sets forth procedures designed to remedy the Agency’s prior allegedly unlawful actions. Second, they argue that EPA was a “prime formulator” of the Decree and that its judgment is entitled to great deference. Finally, they stress that Congress implicitly determined, by means of the 1977 Amendments to the Act, that the limits placed by the Decree on EPA’s discretion were appropriate.
We begin by noting that the infringement of agency discretion issue normally arises in the context of a judicial order disposing of a case on' its merits.12 The [90]*90issue is framed somewhat differently here because the Decree was entered by the district court with EPA’s consent. It may well be, as the Companies argue, that “a court has a duty to determine that any consent judgment rendered is within the bounds of its judicial power, notwithstanding the parties’ consent.” Br. for Appellants at 40. Nevertheless, as the discussion in Part II above indicates, a court fulfills its responsibility in this respect simply by determining that the settlement is consistent with the statute the consent judgment is to enforce and fairly and reasonably resolves the controversy in a manner consistent with the public interest. Thus, the Companies’ claim that a court does not have power to fashion consent decrees based upon its perception of the public interest misses the point. The Decree here was largely the work of EPA and the other parties to these suits, not the district court; manifestly, the requirements imposed by the Decree do not represent judicial intrusion into the Agency’s affairs to the same extent they would if the Decree were “a creature of judicial cloth.” Weinberger v. Catholic Action of Hawaii/Peace Education Project, 454 U.S. 139, 141, 102 S.Ct. 197, 200, 70 L.Ed.2d 298 (1981).
For this reason, the district court’s decision to enter the Decree does not run afoul of the holding in Vermont Yankee. As we stated in Association of National Advertisers v. FTC, 617 F.2d 611, 619 n. 10 (D.C.Cir.1979):
The Court [in Vermont Yankee] held that absent extraordinary circumstances the federal courts cannot upset the products of agency rulemaking on the ground that the agency abused its discretion in failing to provide procedures that the courts rather than Congress or the agency believed necessary. Thus the case restricts the ability of courts to refashion normal rulemaking procedures with judicially-conceived notions of administrative fair play.
In Vermont Yankee it was undisputed that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had fully complied with the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The issue was whether a court could order that agency to afford more procedural rights to license applicants than the APA provided. Here, by contrast, EPA failed to comply with the statutory directive that the Agency promulgate various regulations. The ultimate issue raised by NRDC’s suit, therefore, was what action EPA should be required to take in order to correct that deficiency. Since the solution arrived at was to a considerable extent the work of the Agency itself, and since the district court’s role was confined to approving the fairness of the consent decree which incorporates it and ensuring the consistency of the Decree with the Act, Vermont Yankee’s concern for “judicially-conceived notions of administrative fair play” is inapposite here.
None of the other cases cited by the Companies satisfy us that the Decree impermissibly infringes on the EPA Administrator’s statutory discretion. First, none of them involve consent decrees. Second, they do not support the Companies’ position in this case. For example, our statement in Public Service Commission of New York v. Federal Power Commission, 543 F.2d 757, 833 n. 42 (D.C.Cir.1974), that “a court may not compel an administrative agency to pursue a particular course of action when another is open to it” is quoted out of context by the Companies. As a reading of the rest of the opinion makes clear, “a particular course of action” refers to the agency’s final decision on the merits of the question before it. See Federal Power Commission v. Idaho Power Co., 344 U.S. 17, 20, 73 S.Ct. 85, 86, 97 L.Ed. 15 (1952) (holding that this Court had “usurped an administrative function” in deciding that a [91]*91license should be issued by the FPC without the conditions attached to it by the agency). The Decree here does not prescribe the content of the regulations that EPA must promulgate. Nor does the Decree direct the Agency to enforce the regulations in any particular way.
In National Association of Postal Supervisors v. United States Postal Service, 602 F.2d 420 (D.C.Cir.1979), we held that the district court erred in ordering the Postal Service to maintain a specific salary differential of 25% between management personnel and rank-and-file workers, in light of the fact that the governing statute required only that the differential be “adequate and reasonable.” The court’s error lay in its failure to recognize the Postal Service’s broad discretion over “internal management matters.” Id. at 432. In Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Train, 510 F.2d 692 (D.C.Cir.1975), another case involving the federal government’s efforts to curb water pollution, we reversed in part a district court order requiring EPA to publish by a fixed date all effluent limitations guidelines mandated by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b)(1)(A). We held that the district court had erred in setting a deadline for publication of guidelines covering categories of “point sources” not listed in the statute, as Congress had clearly intended to leave such matters to the Agency’s discretion. Here we are reviewing an order approving a settlement agreement that EPA voluntarily entered into, rather than an order requiring EPA to take action against its will. Hence our admonition in Train concerning the limits of a court’s role in effectuating regulatory legislation13 is not applicable. Indeed, in this case the Companies want the court to narrow EPA’s discretion to settle litigation in a manner that permits EPA to implement the CWA through EPA’s preferred approach.
Our decision in Adams v. Richardson, 480 F.2d 1159 (D.C.Cir.1973) (en banc) supports the district court’s holding. In Adams we affirmed a district court order requiring the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to take various steps to end segregation in public schools pursuant to Title VI. The plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that HEW had adopted a general policy of seeking voluntary compliance with the statute which amounted to an abdication of its statutory duty. In its appeal, HEW contended that “although enforcement is required, the means of enforcement is a matter of absolute agency discretion .... ” Id. at 1162. We rejected this argument and concluded that, in light of the unequivocal duty imposed on the agency by Title VI, the district court acted properly in directing it to pursue an affirmative enforcement policy. We think our observation in Adams v. Richardson, to which we recently referred in Adams v. Bell, 711 F.2d 161 at 164, 166 (D.C.Cir.1983) (en banc) is equally applicable to this case: “[Ojur purpose, and the purpose of the District Court order as we understand it, is not to resolve particular questions of compliance or noncompliance. It is, rather, to assure that the agency properly construes its statutory obligations, and that the policies it adopts and implements are consistent with those duties and not a negation of them.” 480 F.2d at 1163-64 (footnotes omitted).14
Finally, we think that the argument, advanced by EPA and NRDC, that Congress implicitly sanctioned the limited infringe[92]*92ment on the Agency’s discretion which the Decree entails is well taken. As set out in our prior opinion, 636 F.2d at 1238-45, the legislative history of the 1977 Amendments contains numerous references to the Decree which suggest that “Congress expected the settlement agreement to continue in effect.” Id. at 1244. We pause to emphasize just one of many: Senator Muskie, chairman of the Senate subcommittee that reviewed EPA’s implementation of the Act and floor manager of the Conference Report in the Senate, explained to his colleagues that “[t]he conference agreement was specifically designed to codify the so-called ‘Flannery decision,’ [a consent decree that] ... EPA has been implementing.” 123 Cong.Rec. 39, 181 (1977), quoted in Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Costle, supra, 636 F.2d at 1243. Had Congress felt that the Decree infringed too much on the discretion it had given EPA’s Administrator, that sentiment would likely have appeared in the legislative history. The Companies cannot identify any evidence of it, and all we have found is evidence to the contrary.
The May 7, 1982 Order
The Companies also appeal from part of the district court’s order of May 7, 1982, denying EPA’s cross-motion to modify the Decree in certain respects. EPA itself does not appeal from that decision. The Companies’ arguments with respect to this order are similar to the ones they make with respect to the first order. In essence, they contend that the district court erred in declining to exclude from the Decree those provisions which the Companies deem “non-statutory.” For the reasons stated above in our review of the February 5 order, we find no error in the district court’s order of May 7, 1982.
We note in passing that the Companies’ concern that the district court has imposed a “high hurdle to modification of the Decree,” Br. for Appellants at 56, appears misplaced. The district court’s own assessment of the flexibility with which it has administered the Decree, 16 Env’t Rep.Cas. (BNA) at 2089, is borne out by the record. For example, while this appeal was pending, the district court twice considered Rule 60(b) motions by EPA and NRDC to extend certain deadlines for the promulgation of regulations and for compliance by the Companies therewith, and in each case decided to grant the motion. See note 6 supra.
Conclusion
The settlement agreement between EPA and NRDC does not impermissibly infringe on the EPA Administrator’s discretion under the Clean Water Act. Therefore, the district court properly entered the Decree and its orders denying the motions to vacate, revise, or modify the Decree are affirmed.