119-HR-6398 Data-Driven Journalist Impact Analysis

Economic Effects

What changes if EPA’s §309 review is limited to legislation only (no reviews of EISs, major actions, or other agencies’ proposed regulations)?

• Project timelines: Limited direct acceleration expected. EPA’s §309 reviews occur within the normal NEPA comment window; eliminating them changes content/visibility more than schedule. Median EIS timelines recently improved to ~2.2–2.4 years without this bill, suggesting other drivers dominate overall duration. [3]US EPA — EPA Review Process under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act[4]CEQ / The White House (archived) — CEQ press release: New Data Shows Improved S…
• Regulatory development: Interagency review by OIRA under E.O. 12866 remains for significant rules, so agencies would still receive cross‑agency input; however, EPA’s §309 comments on other agencies’ rules would no longer be a separate public track. [7]US EPA — Summary of Executive Order 12866 — Regulatory Planning and Review
• Transparency and predictability: OIRA publishes logs and some materials after reviews conclude; EPA §309 letters on EISs are posted contemporaneously. Removing §309 reviews may reduce real‑time visibility into interagency critiques, which can affect stakeholder expectations and investment timing. [8]US Government (NPR library copy) — Executive Order 12866 — Regulatory Planning…[3]US EPA — EPA Review Process under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act
• Cost impacts: EPA workload would fall (fewer §309 letters), lowering administrative costs at EPA and potentially at lead agencies that respond to those letters. Against this, weaker early issue‑spotting can shift costs to later redesign or litigation. (Inference based on litigation frequencies and §309 mitigation history.) [9]Congressional Research Service — CRS In Focus IF11932 — National Environmental…[6]US EPA (archive) — EPA NEPA 2016 Annual Results (Section 309 outcomes)

Social Effects

Potential distributional and community‑level consequences.

• Environmental justice (EJ): EPA’s §309 process has guidance and tools (e.g., cumulative‑impact and EJ screening) that inform comment letters. Curtailing §309 removes one institutionalized check for EJ concerns during EIS review, though NEPA and broader EJ executive policies still apply across agencies. [10]US EPA (snapshot) — EPA guidance: Environmental Justice in NEPA and §309 reviews[11]US EPA — EPA tools and guidance on cumulative impacts (incl. guidance for NEPA…[12]Web search · turn 6 #0
• Community input and trust: Public posting of EPA’s §309 ratings/letters helps communities understand unresolved concerns. Shifting to OIRA‑only interagency channels for regulations, with disclosures largely after review, may reduce contemporaneous clarity for affected communities. [3]US EPA — EPA Review Process under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act[8]US Government (NPR library copy) — Executive Order 12866 — Regulatory Planning…
• Tribal, state, and local coordination: CEQ‑directed NEPA processes continue, but EPA’s ability to elevate unresolved issues to CEQ under §309 would be narrowed (to legislation only), reducing one pathway communities sometimes rely on to escalate disputes. [5]Council on Environmental Quality — CEQ: Referrals to CEQ (40 CFR Part 1504) and…

Environmental Effects

How might narrowing §309 change environmental outcomes?

• Mitigation uptake: Historically, EPA reported that 76% of significant impacts it identified in §309 draft‑EIS letters were mitigated by the time of the final EIS—evidence that §309 can drive design changes. Limiting §309 reviews could reduce such negotiated mitigations. [6]US EPA (archive) — EPA NEPA 2016 Annual Results (Section 309 outcomes)
• Dispute elevation: EPA’s broad referral power under §309 (legislation, actions, or regulations) would be constrained to legislation only; other agencies retain NEPA referral authority, but EPA’s unique trigger would be narrower—potentially allowing some environmentally contentious actions to proceed without the same escalation leverage. [5]Council on Environmental Quality — CEQ: Referrals to CEQ (40 CFR Part 1504) and…
• Overall emissions/resource impacts: Directionally ambiguous. Faster decisions could advance both low‑carbon and high‑impact projects. Net effects depend on sector mix and the degree to which §309 currently alters project designs; evidence indicates EISs are ~1% of NEPA reviews, so aggregate environmental effects may be concentrated in fewer, larger projects. [4]CEQ / The White House (archived) — CEQ press release: New Data Shows Improved S…

Temporal Analysis

1. Near term (0–2 years): Minimal schedule changes for ongoing NEPA reviews; agencies may issue fewer revisions prompted specifically by EPA §309 comments. Transparency drops for regulatory interagency critiques as §309 comments on other agencies’ rules cease. [3]US EPA — EPA Review Process under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act[8]US Government (NPR library copy) — Executive Order 12866 — Regulatory Planning…
2. Medium to long term (2+ years): Potential cumulative reduction in mitigation measures that historically emerged through §309 exchanges; modest increase in litigation risk at the margins if deficiencies go unflagged early. Overall NEPA timing continues to be shaped by CEQ deadlines and agency capacity. [6]US EPA (archive) — EPA NEPA 2016 Annual Results (Section 309 outcomes)[9]Congressional Research Service — CRS In Focus IF11932 — National Environmental…[13]Council on Environmental Quality — CEQ EIS Timelines (2010–2024) — reports and…

Unintended Consequences

Assessment

Analytical stance (not advocacy).

Neutral. The bill cleanly reduces a layer of interagency environmental review unique to EPA under §309 while leaving NEPA and OIRA structures intact. Expected benefits are lower administrative burden and slightly faster internal decision cycles; expected costs are reduced transparency, a narrowed CEQ‑referral backstop, and potential declines in mitigation that EPA historically helped secure. Magnitudes are uncertain and will depend on agency practices and project mix. [1]Congress.gov — Text - H.R.6398 (RED Tape Act) 119th Congress (2025–2026)[2]LII / Cornell Law School — 42 U.S. Code § 7609 — Policy review (Clean Air Act §…[3]US EPA — EPA Review Process under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act[6]US EPA (archive) — EPA NEPA 2016 Annual Results (Section 309 outcomes)

Sourcing (principal references)

• Bill text and status: Congress.gov H.R. 6398 (RED Tape Act). [1]Congress.gov — Text - H.R.6398 (RED Tape Act) 119th Congress (2025–2026)
• Current §309 statute (42 U.S.C. §7609). [2]LII / Cornell Law School — 42 U.S. Code § 7609 — Policy review (Clean Air Act §…
• EPA §309 review process and public posting of EIS comments. [3]US EPA — EPA Review Process under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act
• EPA §309 outcomes (FY2016 mitigation uptake). [6]US EPA (archive) — EPA NEPA 2016 Annual Results (Section 309 outcomes)
• CEQ EIS timelines dataset and 2025 update; share of EISs in NEPA. [13]Council on Environmental Quality — CEQ EIS Timelines (2010–2024) — reports and…[4]CEQ / The White House (archived) — CEQ press release: New Data Shows Improved S…
• CEQ referral framework and EPA’s broader §309 referral authority. [5]Council on Environmental Quality — CEQ: Referrals to CEQ (40 CFR Part 1504) and…
• OIRA review under E.O. 12866 and disclosure practices. [7]US EPA — Summary of Executive Order 12866 — Regulatory Planning and Review[8]US Government (NPR library copy) — Executive Order 12866 — Regulatory Planning…
• NEPA litigation context (CRS). [9]Congressional Research Service — CRS In Focus IF11932 — National Environmental…