Overview
Title
Boards, Commissions, and Committees
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers decided to clean up their rulebook by deleting a rule about their own meetings because it wasn't needed and didn’t affect the public. This makes things less confusing for everyone, but they didn’t explain much about why it was a problem before.
Summary AI
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, part of the Department of Defense, has issued a final rule removing a section from the Code of Federal Regulations that dealt with Boards, Commissions, and Committees. This section was redundant and only involved internal agency operations, which did not impact the public. The removal simplifies guidance related to the Greater Mississippi River Basin Water Management Board, which is covered by an updated regulation available online. The change, which is not significant under federal regulatory planning guidelines, aims to reduce confusion without affecting public responsibilities or costs.
Abstract
This final rule removes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' part titled Boards, Commissions, and Committees. This part is redundant of or otherwise covers internal agency operations that have no public compliance component or adverse public impact. Therefore, this part can be removed from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Document
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a branch of the Department of Defense, announced a final rule that removes a section titled "Boards, Commissions, and Committees" from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). This rule, previously included in 33 CFR part 223, mainly addressed internal agency functions related to the Mississippi River Water Control Management Board. Since this section did not oblige public compliance nor had implications for public activity, its removal aligns with efforts to minimize redundancy in federal regulations. The regulation's principles remain applicable only to internal Corps operations and are now incorporated into the Engineer Regulation, with updated guidelines accessible online.
Significant Issues and Concerns
The document indicates that the regulation’s removal is not significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, a guideline for assessing the impact of regulatory actions. However, it does not provide an extensive rationale for this classification. Clearer insight into how decisions such as this are determined to be non-significant could offer readers greater transparency. Additionally, while it is posited that the rule did not impose public burdens or adverse impacts, evidential support or a detailed analysis justifying this conclusion is absent.
Concerns also rise about the assertion that removing the regulation will simplify matters and reduce confusion both for the public and the Corps. While this appears beneficial, the document does not specify instances of confusion caused by the existing rule nor examples of the anticipated benefits. More explicit detail on how the rule's presence had previously complicated internal or public understanding would strengthen this claim.
Impact on the Public Broadly
Given that the regulation mainly affects internal operations within the Corps and does not engage public compliance, its removal is unlikely to have significant public impact. For the general population, this administrative change represents an era of regulatory simplification without altering public rights or obligations.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For stakeholders directly involved with or within the Corps, such as Corps members and employees engaged in water management for the Mississippi River, this change in regulation could streamline operational processes. They will now refer to an updated set of guidelines that may provide clearer direction aligned with current practices. This reorganization could potentially enhance efficiency in addressing water control issues within the Mississippi River Basin.
In summary, the document outlines a shift towards internal streamlining within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, prioritizing efficiency and up-to-date guidance without broad implications for public activities or responsibilities. While the intentions behind the regulatory removal are explained, further elaboration on its classification as non-significant and the specifics of the confusion it aims to resolve would improve the document's effectiveness.
Issues
• The rule mentions that it is not significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, but does not explain why it is not significant. Providing a reason could offer more clarity.
• The document states that the regulation has no public compliance component or adverse public impact, which might make its existence in the CFR unnecessary, but it could be beneficial to show more explicit data or analysis to support this claim.
• The rule removal is said to reduce confusion for the public as well as the Corps, yet there is no detailed evidence or examples provided on how the current CFR part is causing confusion.
• The language concerning the transfer of oversight functions to the Engineer Regulation is clear, but lacks a simple summary regarding what specific changes in operational procedures this can lead to within the Corps.