|From:||Lenny Siegel <email@example.com>|
|Date:||27 Mar 2002 11:02:22 -0000|
|Subject:||Re: [CPEO-MEF] Section 1041 "Defense Impact Review"|
[from Robert taylor: <RST195005@aol.com>] Lenny -- I would like to provide a bit of context to your posting on the Defense Impact Review, and the substitute created as a drafting service for the House to replace the provision passed by the House (which, as you correctly note, would have hampered DoD rather than help it). The substitute would have required agencies taking actions that fit into categories of actions listed by DoD as likely to affect national defense, or actions that DoD informed the agencies would affect national defense, to consider the national defense impacts in the agency's decision-making. The provision would have created a procedural requirement -- specifically calling out the agency's obligation to consider the national defense impacts -- but it would NOT have changed any substantive provision of law. Thus, if the underlying environmental statute required a certain regulatory outcome, the provision the House argued for in conference would not have changed that outcome, no matter what the consequences to national defense. Moreover, even if the agency action was not required by the underlying statute, but it was permissible under that statute, the agency would be free to select that option -- even if it was bad for national defense -- as long as the agency considered the national defense impacts. Under existing law and existing executive orders, the agencies today must consider at least the following: -- whether the action would have a "significant" regulatory impact, defined as having an effect on the national economy of $100 million per year, and if so to perform a regulatory impact analysis; -- whether the action would affect environmental justice; -- whether the action concerns a health or safety risk that has a disproportionate impact on children; -- whether the action has federalism implications, in which case early consultation with state and local officials is required, and the action generally is not to impose direct compliance costs on State or local governments unless funded by the Federal Government; -- whether the action has "tribal implications" in which event consultation and coordination with Indian Tribal Governments is required; -- whether the action would significantly affect energy supply, distribution, or use, in which event those impacts must be carefully considered; -- whether the action would create an "unfunded mandate" on State and local governments, in which event an "Unfounded Mandates Analysis" would be required; -- whether the action would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, in which event the agency would have to perform a "Regulatory Flexibility Analysis"; -- whether the action would create an added paperwork burden on the public; and -- whether the action is subject to the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act. In this lengthy list -- required for every rule today -- there is no mention of national defense. Treating national defense impacts the same as impacts on the national economy, impacts on Indian Tribes, impacts on small business, and impacts on State and local governments does not seem over the top to me. The reaction from opponents to the proposal was a curious mixture of "the agencies have to consider all comments already and the proposal adds nothing," and "singling out national defense would lead to the end of all life on earth." Which is it -- would the proposal do too much or nothing at all? In fact, I believe that the proposal was a modest call to the agencies to pay attention to the consequences of their actions on national defense, just as they are specifically called on to pay attention to the consequences on a host of other national interests. The best argument against the provision, and the basis for the Administration's decision not to support the provision, was that the President already has more than adequate authority to ensure that executive branch agencies take impact on national defense into account. The President should issue an executive order requiring that consideration -- just as Presidents have done with respect to most of the requirements I have ticked off above that are applicable to rulemakings today. As you know (but others on this listserv might not), I served as the Deputy General Counsel (Environment and Installations), DoD, for 6 and 1/2 years, ending this past January. // Robert Taylor -- Lenny Siegel Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041 Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545 Fax: 650/96I-8918 <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.cpeo.org
Prev by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Favorable Prognosis for Cleanup at Pease Tradeport|
Next by Date: [CPEO-MEF] PSR.........
Prev by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Section 1041 "Defense Impact Review"|
Next by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Favorable Prognosis for Cleanup at Pease Tradeport