FR 2020-28881

The document in question is a rule issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) establishing new procedures for issuing guidance documents in alignment with Executive Order 13891. The rule aims to clarify the processes CEQ will use, ensuring transparency and public accessibility through an online database. It also outlines how the public can request changes or the withdrawal of these documents and prescribes a process for significant guidance documents that require public input.

General Summary

The rule seeks to formalize the internal procedures within the CEQ for creating and disseminating guidance documents. These documents are critical for providing clarity on regulatory and statutory requirements as interpreted by the CEQ. The rule ensures that these documents are published on the CEQ's website, making them accessible to the public. Moreover, it sets straightforward criteria on what constitutes a guidance document and sets forth requirements for them, such as including a title, unique identification number, and a disclaimer indicating that they do not have the force of law unless specified.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Several notable issues arise within this rule. Firstly, there is an absence of specific financial implications, which makes assessing the rule's fiscal prudence challenging. Additionally, it does not indicate any direct beneficiaries, leaving questions about the favorability towards certain groups unanswered. The rule's language, filled with legal and technical jargon, may pose comprehension challenges for those not familiar with executive orders and regulatory practices. The complex legal references could benefit from simplification to make the document more accessible to the general public.

Impact on the Public

Broadly speaking, this document establishes a framework that promotes transparency and public engagement. By requiring guidance documents to be publicly accessible, the rule enhances the public's ability to understand regulatory interpretations affecting them. However, the technical nature of the document and the reliance on pre-existing executive orders may limit this accessibility to those familiar with such governmental operations.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For stakeholders within the environmental sector, such as NGOs, regulatory bodies, and businesses, this rule provides a clearer pathway to understand and anticipate changes in regulatory guidance. The ability for public petition offers organizations a mechanism to influence or request clarification on guidance documents, potentially leading to increased stakeholder engagement. However, the rule’s complexity might necessitate organizations to invest in legal expertise to navigate the procedures effectively, potentially increasing operational costs for smaller entities.

Overall, while the rule attempts to establish a clear and transparent process for guidance document issuance by the CEQ, its complexity and use of specialized language may hinder its effectiveness in promoting broad public understanding and engagement.

The Federal Register document outlines new procedures for the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regarding the issuance of guidance documents. As part of this rule, several financial aspects have been touched upon, primarily concerning the potential economic impact of "significant guidance documents."

Summary of Financial References

The document mentions that significant guidance documents are those which could potentially have a substantial economic impact, defined as an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. This figure serves as a threshold for determining which guidance documents require a more thorough evaluation and specific procedural steps before being issued. The rule also asserts that it will not impose unfunded mandates exceeding $100 million on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

Financial References and Identified Issues

One of the key issues identified is the absence of explicit spending amounts or appropriations in the document, which makes it difficult to audit or scrutinize for potential wasteful spending. While the rule sets a financial threshold for significant guidance documents, it does not specify any particular outlays or investments that would be affected, leaving much open to interpretation.

Moreover, the rule does not clearly define beneficiaries, making it challenging to ascertain if any specific organizations or individuals stand to gain financially from its implementation. This creates ambiguity because readers are not informed about who exactly might be impacted by these guidance documents' financial thresholds.

The complexity of the legal references, particularly those relating to financial impacts, could be simplified for better understanding by the general public. Terms like "significant guidance documents" with a financial threshold of $100 million hinge on specific legal interpretations that are not elaborately defined or accessible without deeper legal knowledge.

Overall, while the document does communicate the potential economic magnitude of certain guidance documents, it falls short in providing transparency and clarity regarding who is financially affected and in what way. This lack of specificity contributes to potential confusion and limits the ability of readers to fully understand the financial implications of the rule.