“No More Stringent Than”Briefing PaperBackground: The issue is whether the General Assembly should enact a law that would prohibit state rules from being more stringent than corresponding provisions of federal law. In favor of “no more stringent than”: From statements made by Representative Wolkins and IDEM Commissioner Tom Easterly at the EQSC meeting, 10/30/2006 About one-third of states have enacted similar laws, which generally permit state agency regulation in areas not subject to EPA regulations. State regulators try to meet specific goals without a balanced view of costs and benefits, and state regulators are not directly accountable to the general public. Legislators can identify issues that call for regulation more stringent than federal law on a case-by-case basis. Rulemaking process would be streamlined – there would be little or no discretion at the state level, therefore no need for lengthy public process. IDEM would not need to respond to any citizen concerns that did not relate to EPA requirements. Federal law should serve as a baseline and the General Assembly should determine when and to what extent state law should be more stringent.
Opposed: From statements made by Easterly and Senator Beverly Gard at EQSC meeting The process required to understand the issue and propose a solution that is more stringent leads to greater understanding of costs and benefits of a variety of solutions. The EPA may be too slow to address an issue that is very important in Indiana but not on a national level. States with NMST requirements have to work hard at the federal level to get the EPA to develop national programs and rules to address the local issues. Some might argue that IDEM has no need to collect data for anything that is not required by the EPA, making it impossible to measure or address Indiana environmental problems that have not registered on the federal level. Institute additional oversight to ensure that legal requirements are followed when rules are more stringent than federal requirements. IDEM or other bodies must make a compelling case to justify any requirements that are more stringent than the federal requirements.
Action: The EQSC briefly discussed the matter at the October 30 meeting but did not make a recommendation due to lack of time to fully address the issue. The WUC will discuss at the January meeting. Please be aware of this issue and how it might impact your business. For more information: US Environmental Protection Agency State Environmental Resource Center commentary Lawmaker refuses to let environmental bill die, NWI Times, May 10, 2005 Indiana Law Blog entry, May 19, 2005 Rep. Wolkins's memo re: No More Stringent Than, April 25, 2005 Hoosier Environmental Council newsletter, April 2005 Commissioner Easterly’s report to the EQSC, October 30, 2006
|