Overview
Title
Resource Use: Establishment of Objectives
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers took away some old rules because they didn't really affect people and were just about how they do things inside their office. This makes things less confusing and everything important is still written down for them to use.
Summary AI
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has officially removed a section of their regulations titled "Resource Use: Establishment of Objectives" from the Code of Federal Regulations. This section was seen as redundant since it covered internal operations without affecting the public. The relevant guidelines and procedures are still available in other internal documents and online publications. This update aims to clear any confusion about current policies on resource use objectives and has no significant public impact or regulatory burden.
Abstract
This final rule removes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' part titled Resource Use: Establishment of Objectives. Each removed section of this part is redundant of or otherwise covers internal agency operations that have no public compliance component or adverse public impact. 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
The document announced in the Federal Register by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, part of the Department of Defense, details the removal of a regulatory section titled "Resource Use: Establishment of Objectives" from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). This decision stems from the recognition that the regulations in question are redundant, covering internal operations without implicating public compliance or adverse public impact. The internal procedures and policy details formerly embedded in this regulation will continue to be accessible through internal documents and online publications, thus aiming to streamline and clarify how the Corps establishes objectives for resource use.
Significant Issues and Concerns
While the document purports to clear up confusion by eliminating what it deems redundant regulations, it does not provide specific examples of the confusion that previously existed. This lack of clarity may concern stakeholders who rely on precise regulatory language to guide public projects involving resource use. Furthermore, while the amendment is designed to streamline internal operations, it omits discussion on how this might affect internal agency workflow or procedures.
The removal process aligns with the recommendations of the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force; however, the document does not delve into the specifics of the Task Force's recommendations or the rationale behind them. Additionally, the document mentions compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), but it lacks a detailed explanation of how NEPA requirements interplay with the changes being made.
Public Impact
For the general public, the removal of this regulation will likely have minimal direct impact, as the document states it does not impose any public burden or cost. However, for individuals or groups involved in water resources management, understanding the implications fully requires a level of familiarity with specific technical documents and regulations, such as the Engineer Regulations mentioned in the document. The absence of clearer explanations or summaries may hinder public understanding or engagement.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
On the positive side, the removal may simplify internal processes for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, potentially leading to more efficient operations and decision-making. This could benefit stakeholders within the agency by reducing bureaucratic complexities and enhancing focus on pertinent regulatory obligations without redundant overlaps.
Conversely, the lack of explicit examples or details regarding the previously existing rule's redundancy or the nature of confusion may leave certain external stakeholders, particularly environmental advocacy groups or public policy analysts, uncertain about the breadth and implications of these changes. The decision's alignment with the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force suggests an overarching aim of regulatory cost reduction, but the document does not expound upon whether there are tangible benefits beyond this strategic alignment.
Overall, while the intention to reduce regulatory redundancies and confusion is clear, the document's brevity and assumption of audience expertise might not fully cater to or inform a wider set of stakeholders about its practical implications.
Issues
• The document states that the rule removal is to reduce confusion, yet it does not provide detailed examples of what specific confusion has been caused by the existing rule.
• The removal of the rule is justified by claiming it is redundant and lacks public compliance requirements, but the potential internal impacts are not discussed.
• While the document mentions the recommendation of the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force, it does not provide detailed reasoning or specific recommendations from the Task Force.
• The document mentions environmental evaluation requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) but does not explain how NEPA compliance interacts with the removal of this rule.
• General public might not easily understand references to specific Engineer Regulations and their implications without further clarification or summarization.
• The document references Executive Order 12866 and 13771 but does not elaborate on why this rule is not considered significant under EO 12866.
• The document states no public burden or costs will be reduced as a result of this removal, yet it could further explain any alternative benefits to the public or the agency.