In 1969 shortly after being sworn in, President Nixon turned to Roy L. Ash, founder of Litton Industries, to chair an Advisory Council on Executive Organization and submit recommendations for structural reform within the federal government. President Nixon was in part reacting to a changing tide in the public's awareness of environmental issues stemming from the publication of Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring in 1962, the enacting of federal laws such as the Clean Air Act in 1963, and the first national Earth Day held on April 22, 1970.
In addition, Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969. This statute set forth the government's role in protecting and preserving the environment. Specifically, Congress intended to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony. NEPA also directed President Nixon to establish a cabinet-level Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and mandated that federal agencies submit reports, called Environmental Impact Statements, which accounted for the likely consequences of certain projects on the environment.
[...] The demands of so many requests necessitate that the Agency spend great sums of resources to disclose the information within the 20-day time period. Nevertheless, the EPA is often unable to keep pace and release the requested document within the mandated period. The following table illustrates FOIA requests made to the EPA and how frequently they were litigated over the past six years. Requests documents) documents) Requests documents) documents) Most Cited Reason for Commercial/financial Inter/intra-agency From Denied Requests completely reversed) completely reversed) If the EPA fails to respond to a properly submitted request within the 20- day timeframe, parties may seek judicial review without first making an administrative appeal. However, if the agency denies a request, an appeal must be made no later than 30 days from the date of the letter denying the request to the Headquarters' Freedom of Information Staff. Parties are permitted to seek judicial review in federal court if they are dissatisfied with the determination made by Headquarters' FOIA Office. Public Meetings and Committees The primary purpose of EPA's Office of Cooperative Environmental Management (OCEM) is to lead the Agency's advisory committee process and work as a catalyst for public participation in national and international decision- making processes. [...]
[...] In other words, in cases where the penalty assessed by the administrative law judge is within the penalty policy range for the violations at issue, the Environmental Appeals Board “will generally not substitute its judgment for that of the [ALJ] absent a showing that the [ALJ] has committed an abuse of discretion or a clear error in assessing the penalty.” In re Morton L. Friedman and Schmitt Construction Company, CAA Appeal No. 02-07, slip op. at 53 (EAB. 2004). Environmental Appeals Board Practice Manual (June 2004). [...]
[...] This is a good example having to “exhaust” administrative remedies before a party will have standing in federal court. 40 C.F.R. 2.104 (2005). Overview of OCEM Operations, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management, available at http://www.epa.gov/ocem/overview.htm. 5 U.S.C. app. 1 (2005). 5 U.S.C. 552(b) (2005). Federal Advisory Committee Act Meetings, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management, available at http: www.epa.gov/ocem/faca/faca_calendar.htm. See, e.g., Fed. Reg. 228509-228510 (1998). “Attendance at the different EPA meetings varies depending on the type of event, how large an audience is interested in that event, when and where it is scheduled, and how far in advance and how effectively it is publicized. [...]
[...] 750.2 (procedures for rulemaking under section 750.13 (procedures for manufacturing exemptions); 750.33 (procedures for processing and distribution in commerce exemptions). Pollution and Prevention Toxics Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, available at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/docket/index.htm. 40 C.F.R. 22.18 (2005). 22.4 1.25 (2005). See generally C.F.R. 22 (2005) (while interning at the EPA this summer, I was able to attend a day-long seminar on how the Rules of Consolidated Practice apply to hearings at the EPA. Perhaps what I was most surprised to learn was how the hearings were in that many formal rules of evidence do not apply). [...]
[...] In the drafting stages the EPA is required to assess the regulation's expected benefits and costs using quantitative and qualitative measures. Although infrequent, the EPA also engages in formal rulemaking with evidence presented in a court-like setting. Rules and regulations that the EPA was given authority to promulgate under TSCA can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations. Notice of proposed rulemaking is located in several different sections, depending upon the particular type of regulatory action. In addition, information related to the EPA's rulemaking under TSCA and other related regulatory or administrative records can be found in the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket. Included are notices published in the Federal Register, supporting and background documentation prepared or compiled by the Agency, docket indices, and public comments. [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee