Overview
Title
To amend titles 46 and 49, United States Code, to streamline the environmental review process for major projects, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H. R. 3316 wants to make the process of checking how big building projects affect the environment quicker and less complicated, like how it's done for highways. It also wants to make sure everyone can see information about which projects get easy approvals.
Summary AI
H. R. 3316 aims to simplify the environmental review process for major projects in the United States. It proposes changes to titles 46 and 49 of the United States Code, requiring the Secretary of Transportation to adopt more efficient project development procedures for ports, pipelines, and airports, which are based on the existing process used for highway projects. The bill also insists on making information about the use of categorical exclusions publicly available to enhance transparency in the review process.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The bill, known as H. R. 3316, aims to amend titles 46 and 49 of the United States Code. Its primary objective is to streamline the environmental review process for significant infrastructure projects, including those related to ports, pipelines, airports, and aviation. Introduced by Mr. Crawford, this legislation intends to utilize established procedures from highway project development to enhance the efficiency of these reviews. The bill mandates the creation of publicly accessible databases to improve transparency in the use of categorical exclusions for infrastructure projects.
Significant Issues
One notable issue is the broad discretion given to the Secretary of Transportation throughout the bill. Specifically, sections 1(3), 2(3), and 3(c)(2) allow for significant flexibility, raising concerns about potential inconsistencies and favoritism in how development procedures are applied across various infrastructure types. Additionally, the bill extends the period to file legal claims from 150 days to two years for port projects. This change could have significant legal implications, affecting stakeholders' ability to challenge decisions.
The language used in the bill, such as "increase the efficiency of the review" and "greatest extent feasible," is somewhat vague, leading to potential variability in interpretation and application. Furthermore, the bill necessitates the maintenance of public databases but does not clearly designate who will be responsible for updating and ensuring the accuracy of these resources. Lastly, the bill removes substantial portions of existing legal text without offering clear justification or detailed explanations, which could impede transparency.
Public Impact
For the general public, the bill's efforts to streamline environmental reviews could potentially lead to faster implementation of major infrastructure projects. This acceleration might improve the effectiveness and availability of services such as transportation and energy delivery. However, the broad discretion provided to the Secretary of Transportation could lead to inconsistent application of procedures, potentially undermining the uniformity and fairness of reviews across different sectors.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Stakeholders such as government agencies and project developers might experience a more efficient review process, potentially reducing delays and costs associated with infrastructure project development. However, the extended claim period for port projects could complicate legal proceedings and prolong disputes, impacting developers and legal professionals.
Environmental advocates and local communities might express concerns about the vagueness and broad discretion inherent in the bill. The lack of clear benchmarks and definitions could lead to inconsistent environmental protections and oversight, affecting local ecosystems and communities located near proposed infrastructure projects.
In summary, while the bill aims to simplify and accelerate the environmental review process, its broad language and significant delegation of authority to the Secretary of Transportation introduce risks of inconsistency and reduced transparency. Balancing efficiency with accountability remains a critical consideration as the bill progresses through legislative channels.
Issues
The broad discretion granted to the Secretary of Transportation throughout the bill, particularly in sections 1(3), 2(3), and 3(c)(2), could lead to inconsistencies in how project development procedures are applied across different infrastructure types. This raises concerns about potential favoritism and lack of uniformity in environmental review processes, which could be of significant public and political interest.
The extension of the limitation on claims period from 150 days to 2 years in section 1 and potentially elsewhere is a substantial change that could impact legal processes related to port and other infrastructure projects. This amendment might require explanation, as it alters stakeholders' ability to challenge decisions, which is both a legal and political concern.
The vagueness in terms such as 'increase the efficiency of the review' and 'greatest extent feasible' found in sections 1(2), 2(2), and 3(c)(1) leaves room for interpretation, potentially resulting in uneven application and efficacy. The lack of specific benchmarks for efficiency might lead to variability in implementation, impacting the bill's effectiveness and fairness.
Sections 1, 2, and 3 require maintaining publicly accessible databases for categorical exclusions, yet there is no specification regarding who is responsible for updating these databases or ensuring their accuracy. This could lead to accountability and transparency issues, which are significant for public trust and oversight.
The removal of substantial portions of existing text, such as in section 3 by striking various subsections, without clear justification or explanation of replacements or implications, could reduce transparency and understanding of the bill's impact. This could lead to political and ethical concerns about the legislative process and stakeholder engagement.
The absence of clear definitions, such as what constitutes a 'port infrastructure project' or 'pipeline project,' in sections 1 and 2, might lead to ambiguity over the scope of projects covered. This uncertainty can affect stakeholders' understanding of the bill's reach and application.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. One Federal decision for ports Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section adds a new provision to the United States Code focused on making the environmental review process for port infrastructure projects more efficient. It mandates the Secretary of Transportation to use project development procedures, similar to those for highway projects, when approving these projects, and allows for project-specific adjustments. Additionally, it requires maintaining a public database listing projects using categorical exclusions.
54302. Efficient environmental reviews and one Federal decision Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section mandates that the Secretary of Transportation use efficient procedures for environmental reviews when approving port infrastructure projects, similar to those used for highway projects. Additionally, the Secretary will make a database available online that shows details about projects benefiting from a simplified review process called "categorical exclusions."
2. One Federal decision for pipelines Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section adds new requirements for the Secretary of Transportation to efficiently review environmental impacts for pipeline projects. It mandates the use of certain development procedures to speed up reviews and requires a public database of categorical exclusions for pipeline projects.
60144. Efficient environmental reviews and one Federal decision Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines how the Secretary of Transportation should use existing procedures to efficiently review pipeline projects under environmental laws, adapting them from those used for highway and transportation projects. Additionally, it mandates making a database public that lists information about the use of categorical exclusions for these projects.
3. One Federal decision for airports and aviation Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section modifies how the Secretary of Transportation reviews airport and aviation projects by applying project development procedures similar to those used for highway projects, with an emphasis on efficiency. It also requires maintaining a public database showcasing the use of exempt procedures, known as categorical exclusions, for specific projects.
4. Efficient environmental reviews Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Section 4 of the bill changes a rule in the United States Code regarding environmental reviews, specifically by removing a part that allowed lawsuits to be filed up to two years instead of 150 days.