Opinion ID: 358776
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: OMB's Obligation

Text: 33 NEPA requires all agencies of the federal government to: 34 identify and develop methods and procedures, in consultation with (CEQ), which will insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decisionmaking along with economic and technical considerations. 34 35 This requirement is applicable to OMB as the agency responsible for preparation of the budget and other executive legislative proposals, a conclusion drawn from the Act itself and supported by the legislative history and administrative regulations. 35 Our view that some but not all (and certainly not routine) requests for appropriation are proposals for legislation under § 102(2)(C) underscores a need, on the part of agencies, for guidance in determining when an EIS is required in connection with a budget request. 36 These observations clarify the obligation imposed by NEPA and OMB, as the key agency in the executive's budget formulation process, to give appropriate guidance to the agencies. The district court granted declaratory relief that NEPA requires: 37 Defendant Director of the Office of Management and Budget to develop formal methods and procedures which will, with respect to the Office's own administrative actions and proposals, identify those agency actions requiring environmental statements to be prepared, considered, and disseminated. 36 38 The parties have not focused on this aspect of the district court's ruling and we might treat it as not appealed. However, the government defendants might argue that it was implicitly subject to further consideration in the light of their main contention. And the rulings we have made on the type of budget and appropriation requests that require an EIS will obviously affect the obligation put on OMB. To avoid uncertainty, we have considered the matter and affirm the ruling that requires OMB to adopt procedures and appropriate regulations to comply with the obligations NEPA imposes on the budget process when it culminates in proposals for legislation under the principles previously discussed. 39 This is not an onerous task. Preparation of the Budget is OMB's central function in helping the President coordinate the policy of the agencies and establish priorities for his administration. As it stands, the declaratory judgment imposes a duty on OMB to initiate the delineation of the procedures required by NEPA in connection with the budget process. 37 This task will be eased and simplified, we anticipate, by our rulings identifying what types of requests to the legislature for appropriations do and do not require preparation of an EIS, as well as clarifying the bounds of an agency's discretion in undertaking a reevaluation of an ongoing program. 40 OMB will give consideration to how obligations under NEPA can be discharged without violating the principle that holds an agency's budget requests confidential prior to final review by the President. We do not expand on the problem here. For one thing, it was not developed by the government's appeal. Furthermore, we anticipate that the OMB will wish to ponder the matter afresh in light of the rulings in this opinion. The matter may be capable of resolution in a manner that presents program proposals in terms that permit an environmental analysis, without disclosure of dollar projections or other betrayal of genuine budget confidence. Since requirement of an environmental impact statement in connection with budget proposals will arise in relatively few instances, under the principles we have set forth, and since proposals for major program reviews and changes can probably be disclosed in general outline, sufficient for impact statement purposes, without undercutting the objectives underlying budget-type secrecy, OMB can fairly be called on to develop a proposal that serves and harmonizes both NEPA and budget processes. Certainly the fact that a proposal is subject to further review by the Executive is no bar to NEPA's requirement for an environmental statement. On the contrary, NEPA calls for an EIS precisely so that environmental consequences may be taken into account before a final decision is reached by the executive official or agency.