FR 2025-04640

The document in question is a correction to a previously published rule by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). It specifically addresses the words used in the interim final rule concerning the removal of certain regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations. This action, effective April 11, 2025, clarifies the legal authority underlying these changes by citing specific U.S. Code sections and an executive order.

General Summary

The main focus of this document is to correct the words of issuance in a previously published interim final rule by the CEQ. The original rule, published on February 25, 2025, dealt with removing CEQ's regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) from the Code of Federal Regulations. This correction specifies the legal framework supporting these changes, which includes specific sections of the U.S. Code and an executive order issued earlier in 2025.

Significant Issues or Concerns

One significant issue with this document is the lack of a detailed explanation or rationale behind the correction. The document references legal citations, such as the U.S. Code and an executive order, which may be unfamiliar or confusing to those not accustomed to legal language. Furthermore, there is little to no discussion on the implications of this removal for current or future CEQ regulations.

Additionally, while contact information for Megan Healy is provided, the document does not elaborate on her specific role concerning this correction or the wider context of the interim final rule. This absence of context may leave readers unclear about the reasons for the correction and its broader implications.

Impact on the Public Broadly

From a public perspective, changes to the CEQ regulations under NEPA could have far-reaching impacts. NEPA regulations traditionally provide guidelines on how federal agencies assess environmental effects of their proposed actions. By removing these regulations, the process and standards for environmental reviews may be altered, which could influence federal projects nationwide, from infrastructure developments to changes in land use.

People concerned about environmental standards and regulatory processes might view these changes with apprehension, fearing a potential weakening of environmental protections. However, others might view them as a move towards regulatory efficiency, potentially speeding up project approvals that might otherwise be delayed by extensive environmental reviews.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

Different stakeholders might be affected variously by this regulatory change. Environmental advocacy groups might perceive the rule and its correction as a rollback of essential environmental safeguards, potentially impacting their mission to protect environmental quality.

Conversely, developers and businesses, particularly in construction, transportation, and energy sectors, could benefit from reduced regulatory burdens and faster project approvals. These stakeholders might view the rule change as an opportunity to push forward projects that were previously hindered by lengthy and complex environmental assessments.

In conclusion, the document presents a straightforward correction but lacks detailed explanations, which might be necessary for understanding the broader impact of these regulatory changes. Although specific stakeholders might stand to gain or lose from these changes, the general public would need more context to fully grasp the long-term environmental and procedural implications.