On January 17, 2017, the United States House of Representatives passed H.R. 5, the “Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017.” Buried deep within its pages is Title II, the “Separation of Powers Restoration Act.” That title, although only two sections long, dramatically changes the legal landscape for challenges to the actions of federal regulatory agencies. Currently, in adjudicating challenges to administrative rulemaking and implementing actions, the federal courts invoke the precedent established in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984). In that case, the Supreme Court held: “We have long recognized that considerable weight should be accorded to an executive department’s construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer…” In adopting Chevron, the Supreme Court effectively gives administrative agencies almost complete deference, not only in the interpretation of the regulations they implemented, but also, and more controversially, in the way the agencies carry out the mandates of those regulations. Thus, challengers seeking to use the judicial system to point out and rectify what are perceived as misapplication of the regulations, butt up against the reluctance of the courts to question or interfere with the agency’s construction of the regulation or the evidence and its application in carrying out the agency’s order. In Title II, the Congress has stood the current deferential standard on its head.
On Thursday, March 16, 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) took the almost unprecedented step of publishing in the Federal Register a correction to its prior definition of “regulated new source review pollutant” (“Rule”) contained in two sets of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) regulations, 40 C.F.R. §§ 51.166 and 52.21, and in EPA’s Emissions Offset Interpretative Ruling, 40 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix S, 77 Fed.Reg. 15,656. The purpose of the revision is to correct an “inadvertent error” dating back to the Rule’s promulgation in 2008 when the then-existing definition was changed to require that particulate matter emissions, both PM10 and PM2.5, representing three separate size ranges of particulates, must include “gaseous emissions, source or activity which condense to form particulate matter at ambient temperatures,” i.e., condensable particulate matter. See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. § 51.166(b)(49)(vi). Previously, EPA’s regulations only required the filterable fraction, not the condensable particulate matter, to be considered for new source review purposes. The 2008 change therefore imposed an unintended new requirement on State and local agencies and the regulated community.
In a recent report entitled Civil Aviation Growth in the 21st Century, the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) recommended that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) develop strategies to integrate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review into the FAA’s Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) implementation planning process in a way that would make NextGen environmental reviews…
Proponents of California’s proposed high-speed rail project envision a high-speed rail network connecting Sacramento, San Francisco, Central Valley, Los Angeles, Orange County, the Inland Empire and San Diego. However, there are many obstacles, real or imagined, that could delay or derail the project. First, the House Subcommittee on Transportation voted to fund only $1.4 billion for high-speed rail in FY 2011, compared to the $4 billion they approved last year. The project appears to be plagued by unreliable cost, ridership and revenue projections, uncertainty about private investment and, given the State of California’s finances, the possibility that taxpayers may have to subsidize the project if revenue projections are not met. A high-speed rail system would reduce revenues for Metrolink and Amtrak. A number of cities and communities along the proposed routes oppose the project. Finally, the proposed project will require environmental review. Environmental review will include at least two alternatives (in addition to the mandatory “no-action” alternative) – a “shared track” alternative and a “dedicated track” alternative. Both present problems.