Overview
Title
Establishing Reasonable Period of Time and Clarifications Regarding Clean Water Act Section 401(a)(1) Certifications for Hydroelectric Proceedings
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission made a new rule that says if someone wants to build or change a dam and it might let dirty water into rivers or lakes, they have one year to check and make sure the water stays clean. They updated some words to match other rules and changed the timing for when people have to ask permission, so everything works nicely together.
Summary AI
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has finalized a rule clarifying timelines and requirements for water quality certifications under section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act related to hydroelectric projects. This rule specifies that certifying authorities have one year to act on certification requests and affirms that projects discharging into U.S. waters need such certification or a waiver. The regulation updates language for consistency with Environmental Protection Agency terms and sets a timeline for filing certification requests. Changes include revising when certain certifications are required and ensuring procedural alignment with existing federal laws, aiming to enhance clarity, efficiency, and consistency in related hydroelectric proceedings.
Abstract
In this final rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) amends its regulations to clarify that for any proceedings before the Commission that require a water quality certification pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), the reasonable period of time during which the certifying authority may act on the water quality certification request is one year from the certifying authority's receipt of the request. The final rule also clarifies that all Commission authorizations that have the potential to discharge into waters of the United States require a section 401 water quality certification or waiver, including, depending on the activity being proposed, authorizations associated with hydropower exemptions, amendments, and surrenders. Finally, the final rule provides updated terminology in the Commission's hydropower regulations, updates the timing of the filing requirements for the Commission's expedited hydropower licensing process, and in response to comments on the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, removes inconsistent language from parts 5 and 7 of the Commission's regulations.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
Editorial Commentary
General Summary
The document in question is a final rule issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) pertaining to the interpretation and application of Section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act. This rule addresses the timing and requirements for obtaining water quality certifications for hydroelectric projects. It mandates that certifying authorities such as states or authorized tribes have a one-year timeframe to act on requests for water quality certification. This timeframe aligns with broader federal environmental goals and provides a clear structure within which hydroelectric projects can proceed, emphasizing consistency with terminology and procedural clarity. The rule aims to ensure that projects discharging into U.S. waters obtain necessary environmental certifications or waivers.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One significant issue with the document is its use of legal and procedural jargon, which may be difficult for the general public to comprehend. Terms like "certifying authority is deemed to have waived" could be inaccessible without a legal background. The document also contains complex cross-references to other legal frameworks and sections of the Code of Federal Regulations, which can be challenging to follow without additional context or explanation.
Furthermore, the document includes numerous footnotes and citations to previous legal decisions and rules. These references might be essential for legal practitioners but could confuse general readers, who may not have easy access to these legal texts. Additionally, the lengthy sections and dense regulatory language make the document difficult to navigate or read fluidly, especially when interspersed with nested subsections and bullet points. Terms such as "material adverse impact" used without immediate explanation can lead to ambiguity or misinterpretation by non-experts.
Potential Broad Impact on the Public
For the public, this rule carries implications for environmental protection and regulatory efficiency. By defining a clear one-year decision period for certifying authorities, the rule aims to reduce delays in licensing hydroelectric projects, which can impact energy production timelines and environmental protection measures. This may reassure communities that hydroelectric projects will be appropriately reviewed for environmental impacts within a reasonable time frame.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Specific stakeholders, such as hydroelectric project developers, state environmental bodies, and environmental advocacy groups, will see varied impacts. Developers may benefit from increased predictability in project timelines, knowing that water quality certification decisions will be made within a set timeframe. This can aid in planning and resource allocation.
However, certifying authorities might feel pressured by the one-year limit to thoroughly review applications, which could affect thoroughness if resources are limited. Environmental groups might be concerned about whether a rigid timeframe allows for adequate consideration of environmental impacts, especially when highly complex eco-systems or detailed assessments are involved.
Overall, while the rule adds structure and clarity to the certification process, stakeholders will need to balance expeditious project reviews with comprehensive environmental evaluations. The requirement for certifying authorities and applicants to adhere to updated procedural timelines will likely require adjustments in regulatory workflows and collaborations.
Issues
• Use of legal and procedural jargon that might be difficult for the general public to understand, such as 'certifying authority is deemed to have waived the certification requirements' or 'reasonable period of time for action on requests for water quality certification.'
• Complex cross-references to other regulatory documents and sections, such as references to specific sections of the Code of Federal Regulations and multiple references to the Federal Power Act and Clean Water Act.
• The document contains multiple instances of citations that rely on legal and regulatory precedents that might not be easily accessible to all readers, such as 'Waiver of the Water Quality Certification Requirements of Section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, Order No. 464' and other historical regulatory adjustments.
• The extensive use of footnotes that require additional reference for full comprehension might lead to confusion or missed information for readers who do not check them.
• Lengthy sections of text with complex structuring (such as nested subsections and bullet points) can make the document difficult to navigate or read fluidly.
• Certain terms like 'material adverse impact' are used without immediate definition or explanation within the context, potentially leading to ambiguity or misinterpretation.
• Lack of explanation about the practical implications of rule changes on small entities or specific industries, despite assurances that it will not significantly impact small businesses.