Overview
Title
General Credit for Flood Control
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers decided to take away a rule because they have newer, better instructions hidden inside their own documents, kind of like keeping a special toy guidebook just for them. They think this way it will make things less confusing, even if they didn't really explain the old confusing parts.
Summary AI
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has decided to remove the rule titled General Credit for Flood Control from the Code of Federal Regulations because it is outdated. The rule, originally published in 1987, contained guidelines for local contributions to flood control projects. Current policies and procedures are now available in internal documents, ensuring information is up-to-date and reducing public confusion. This change does not affect the public since it only applies to internal operations and does not include any compliance requirements for the public.
Abstract
This final rule removes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' part titled General Credit for Flood Control. Each removed section of this part is out-of-date as current policy and procedures on this subject can be found in internal documents. Therefore, this part can be removed from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
Summary
The document from the Federal Register discusses the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' decision to remove a rule titled General Credit for Flood Control from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Originally, the rule provided guidelines established in 1987 for local contributions to flood control projects. The Corps deemed the rule outdated, as current policies are now documented internally. This removal aims to reduce public confusion, although it does not impact public compliance or costs since it pertains to internal operations.
Significant Issues or Concerns
There are a few concerns regarding the document:
Lack of Demonstrated Efficiency: The document states that the current internal documents cover the rule’s aspects more efficiently but fails to provide any concrete evidence or examples to support this claim. Without clarity on how the new internal documents are an improvement, stakeholders might remain uncertain about the benefits of this change.
Transparency and Involvement: The decision to bypass public comment could raise questions about the transparency of the regulatory process. Public participation is often considered vital in government decision-making to ensure that diverse perspectives are considered, and its omission may be seen as disregarding stakeholder input.
Economic Evaluations: There is a mention of considering benefits and costs in Federal project evaluations, yet the document does not clarify how such evaluations are carried out under the new internal policies. This lack of clarity might lead to uncertainties about long-term federal planning and project approval processes.
Resolution of Confusion: While the rule's removal is said to reduce confusion, the document does not explicitly explain what confusion existed previously or how the removal resolves those issues. Stakeholders cannot fully understand the intended benefits without these specifics.
Incomplete Information on Replacement Policy: The document references an internal Engineer Regulation, ER 1165-2-208. However, it does not provide a summary or key points from the regulation, leaving readers without a clear understanding of how this internal regulation adequately replaces the removed rule.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
The immediate impact on the general public is minimal, as the rule change affects the internal workings of the Corps of Engineers rather than imposing any public burden or compliance requirements. However, the removal could indirectly impact how local flood control projects are integrated with federal initiatives, which might eventually influence community planning and resource allocation for flood protection.
For specific stakeholders, such as local governments and organizations involved in flood control activities, this change could carry more weight. They may need to adjust their involvement with federal projects based on new internal guidelines, which might affect the timing, funding strategies, or design of local flood prevention efforts. The removal of a publicly accessible guideline could lead stakeholders to seek more direct communication with the Corps to understand current policies and ensure their efforts align with federal plans.
In conclusion, while the update seems administrative, the nuances of its implementation and lack of public involvement may result in questions and concerns from involved communities and organizations. It highlights an ongoing balancing act between internal governmental efficiencies and maintaining public confidence through transparency and collaboration.
Issues
• The document removes a part from the CFR under the justification that it is outdated and covered by internal documents, but it does not provide evidence or examples to clearly demonstrate how the internal documents cover these aspects more efficiently.
• The document states that solicitation of public comment is unnecessary, which might raise concerns regarding transparency and public involvement in regulatory processes.
• The document mentions benefits and costs are considered in the economic evaluation of Federal projects, but does not clarify how those evaluations are now conducted under the new internal policies.
• The document claims to reduce confusion but does not clearly outline what specific confusion existed or how the removal resolves the confusion.
• The document references Engineer Regulation (ER) 1165-2-208 without providing a summary or key points from the regulation, which might be necessary for understanding its adequacy in replacing the removed regulation.