Major court decision could invalidate many federal environmental regulations

In what could be a major legal ruling [pdf], a two-judge decision this week in the DC Circuit Court ruled that the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which has for years imposed environmental rules on other federal agencies based on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), does not have the statutory authority to do so, thus invalidating every regulation so imposed.

All three members of the three-judge panel agreed that the Agencies acted arbitrarily and capriciously in [in this particular case]. However, before reaching that conclusion, the majority analyzed whether the CEQ regulations the Agencies followed in adopting the plan were valid, an argument not raised by any of the parties. The majority held, sua sponte, that because there is no statute stating or suggesting that US Congress has empowered the CEQ to issue rules binding on other agencies, the CEQ has no lawful authority to promulgate such regulations.

…Although this decision does not explicitly vacate any action taken by the CEQ, it does establish a precedent that CEQ rules lack statutory authorization, and therefore that other agency actions taken under the CEQ framework are at risk of being vacated. If this decision is not overturned by the full appellate court sitting en banc or by the US Supreme Court, it has the potential to completely change the landscape of NEPA review.

The case is complicated, partly because the Byzantine nature of the federal bureaucracy and the many agencies involved. (It is almost as if these agencies created that complexity to confuse and protect themselves.)

The heart of the decision is that CEQ was apparently first created as an “advisory” body to help other federal agencies follow the intent of NEPA in their own rule-making, but instead soon became a “regulatory” body whose rulings other agencies were required to follow. As that authority was never given it by Congress, CEQ exceeded its authority by making its rulings mandatory.

This court decision will likely leave many agencies on their own in establishing environmental regulations, based on NEPA. However, even that regulatory ability faces limitations, based on the Supreme Court’s recent Chevron decision, which said that government agencies do not have right to promulgate new regulations that are not specifically described in congressional law.

In other words, Chevron says that the bureaucracy cannot make things up, based on its own vague opinions.

The trend of all these court rulings appears aimed at limiting the power of the federal bureaucracy. It will however take some time to determine how much that power is limited, as lawsuits begin to percolate through the courts. If there are lot of lawsuits (which does appear to be happening) we should therefore expect that power to be limited significanly.

NASA leaning now to send Starliner astronauts home on Dragon, in February 2025

Though a decision will not be made until next week, during a press briefing today the nature of the briefing and the wording by NASA officials suggested that they are now leaning strongly to having the two Starliner astronauts, Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams, return on the next Dragon capsule to launch to the station on September 24, 2024 and return in February 2025.

My conclusion is based on several subtle things. First, no Boeing official participated, the second time in row that they were excluded. Second, this briefing included some new individuals who rank higher in the chain of command, and whose opening statements were clearly written carefully in advance and were read aloud.

Third, and most important, the wording of those statements repeatedly indicated they are looking at Dragon return more seriously. For example, NASA’s chief astronaut Joe Acaba suggested strongly that the two astronauts were now well prepared for an eight month mission, rather than coming home in August 2024. Other statements by officials suggested they themselves are less confident about returning on Starliner. Though the data suggests they can return safely, there remains enough uncertainty to make some people uncomfortable.

One factor not stated but is certainly controlling the situation now is the upcoming election in November. The Democrats who control Washington and the White House will allow nothing to happen that could hurt their election chances. We must therefore assume people in the White House are now in control and are the ones who now intend to make the decision about Starliner’s return.

Based on these factors, we should expect NASA to announce next week that the crew will return in a Dragon capsule. In order for the return to happen on Starliner NASA and Boeing engineers must somehow convince those politicos that the return would be entirely safe. Since these politicos are always risk adverse, it would shock me if they can be convinced. It could happen, but understanding the politically framework is important.

The officials stated that they have scheduled the final review next week, and it appears the decision will be announced then.

House committee delays vote on commercial space bill due to new White House proposal

Because of the sudden announcement by the White House of its own version of a new commercial regulatory space bill, the House Science committee was forced to delay the voting on November 15, 2023 of its own new commercial space bill, put forth by Republicans.

The committee met Nov. 15 to mark up the Commercial Space Act of 2023 and one other bill. At the end of the markup, lasting more than three and a half hours including a recess, the committee’s chairman, Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) said the committee would delay votes to advance both bills until after the Thanksgiving break because of votes on the House floor and “and the nature of additional information that has become available to us.”

The latter comment appeared to be a reference to a legislative proposal released by the White House’s National Space Council less than an hour before the markup regarding a mission authorization concept for new space activities. That proposal would establish a system where both the Commerce Department and the Transportation Department would oversee activities not regulated today, based on the type of activity.

The House bill, introduced Nov. 2 by Lucas and space subcommittee chairman Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas), would create its own mission authorization system at the Commerce Department. It would also direct Commerce to hand over responsibility for a civil space traffic coordination system to a consortium led by an academic or nonprofit organization, rather than keeping it within the Office of Space Commerce as currently planned. Lucas, in his opening remarks, said he was aware of the new White House proposal but has reservations about it. “These proposals, I fear, simply go in the wrong direction and hurt rather than support America’s space industry,” he said.

Both bills were aimed at realigning the regulatory regime governing private space activities. The House bill’s final form apparently had been written with a lot of industry input. The White House bill, supported by Democrats, appears designed instead to clamp down on commercial space by allowing the federal bureaucracy to regulate everything.

Both bills unfortunately give too much power to the federal government, though the Republican bill at least tries to shift some of that power to the private sector, where it belongs.

One of the main reasons we have had a rennaisance in commercial space in the past decade is that there has been little regulation. The private sector has been left to regulate itself, and it has generally done so very successfully because of the invisible hand of free market forces. Build things right and the world beats a path to your door. Do it badly and no regulation is needed, you go out of business.

Modern Americans no longer trust these fundamentals of freedom and capitalism, and so we have a rush by government to establish “rules,” none of which will really accomplish anything but slow development and innovation and squelch this emerging industry.

White House objects to House language on military space

The White House today released a detailed statement listing its objections to the House language on the upcoming military space authorization bill and threatening a veto if the Senate version is not passed.

Their objection seem to center on two issues. First, while the administration has accepted the idea of a space corp within the Air Force rather than a separate new military branch, they appear prefer the Senate language for this change. This disagreement appears relatively minor in the entire scheme of things.

Second, and more significantly, the White House has objections to the planned launch contract set up the Air Force has been pushing that would have them pick two launch providers now for all their launches through 2024, rather than allow all comers to bid on those launches as they came up.

On the National Security Space Launch program, the administration “strongly objects” to HASC [House Armed Services Committee] Chairman Adam Smith’s Section 1601 language “as it would increase mission risk for the nation’s national security satellites.”

Section 1601 would mandate that the Air Force compete contracts for any launches beyond 29 launches during the period from fiscal year 2020 to fiscal year 2024. This section would also mandate that the Air Force provide up to $500 million to launch companies that either win a Phase 2 contract after fiscal year 2022 or win a Phase 2 contract but are not part of a Launch Service Agreement, in order to meet national security-unique infrastructure and certification requirements for a Phase 2 contract. This section also require a notification of the selection in fiscal year 2020 of the two providers for Phase 2 launches.

The administration opposes these provisions. “After careful and considered study, DoD determined that a contract for national security space launch requirements over the course of five years would optimize warfighter flexibility, minimizes mission risk, and provides exceptional value to the taxpayer,” says the White House statement. “Confining Phase 2 to fewer missions would increase per-launch cost while simultaneously introducing risk and costs for some intelligence payloads. Finally, notifying Congress prior to a contract would be a departure from long-standing tradition and might put DoD at a greater risk of a protest.”

To put this in simple terms, the House language was an attempt to open up the bidding, while also offering $500 million development money to any company who missed out initially. The White House, and the Air Force, wish to restrict the bidding process, and don’t want to pay that extra $500 million.

All of this I think will become irrelevant the first time the Air Force issues a bid offer for a launch contract but restricts bidding to only two launch companies, even if a third or fourth is available and capable of fulfilling the contract. The excluded launch companies will sue for the right to bid, and they will win.

A petition to have the U.S. withdraw from the United Nations Outer Space Treaty has been submitted to the White House.

Now’s here’s a good idea: A petition to have the U.S. withdraw from the United Nations Outer Space Treaty has been submitted to the White House.

Read it. Mark Whittington, who submitted it, is absolutely right. We get out, we can claim territory on the Moon and thus apply U.S. law to that territory. People and companies could thus own land and have an opportunity to make a profit from their property.

Questions about White House pressure for campaign donor in GPS controversy

A four-star Air Force general told a congressional committee last week that the White House pressured him to soften his testimony concerning the military’s opposition to the technology being used by the broadband company Lightsquared– a major Democratic campaign donor — because it interfered with GPS signals.

In a related update, LightSquared boss said Wednesday that the company is near an engineering breakthrough that will solve the technical issues that worry GPS users.

White House modifies Osama bin Laden account

Multiple stories and contradictions from the White House over the details of Osama bin Laden’s death.

Idiots. The worst thing they could do is not get the story straight. By backing off from their original description of the attack on bin Laden’s compound the White House will only fuel conspiracy theories in the Middle East, where such things are rampant.

Is is too hard to find out what happened, then describe it accurately the first time? Or is exaggeration and lying so routine for these White House political appointees that even here they can’t resist embellishing the truth unnecessarily for political spin?

As I said, idiots.