News and analysis right to your inbox. Click to get Ballotpedia’s newsletters!

Proposal To Reissue and Modify Nationwide Permits rule (2025)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
What is a significant rule?

Significant regulatory action is a term used to describe an agency rule that has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. As part of its role in the regulatory review process, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines which rules meet this definition.


Proposal To Reissue and Modify Nationwide Permits
Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Action: Proposed rule
Type: Section 3(f)(1) significant rule
Federal code: 33 CFR Chapter II
Estimated cost:[1] $3.5 million
Estimated benefit:[1] $0
Policy topics: Environmental regulation

The Proposal To Reissue and Modify Nationwide Permits rule is a proposed rule issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) with a public comment period that ended July 18, 2025, that proposed reissuing Corps Nationwide Permits (NWPs) with modifications, along with issuing a new NWP.[2]

Timeline

The following timeline details key rulemaking activity:

  • July 18, 2025

    The public comment period for the proposed rule ended.

  • June 18, 2025

    The Corps of Engineers published a proposed rule and opened the comment period.[2]

Background

Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Agency control
• Executive control
• Judicial control
•Legislative control
• Public Control
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.
See also: Federal Register, Changes to the Federal Register

Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) may issue nationwide permits (NWPs) to authorize activities that will result in no more than minimal individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects. This proposed rule would issue one new NWP, as well as reissuing existing NWPs with modifications.

Summary of the rule

The following is a summary of the rule from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:[2]

“ The Corps is proposing to reissue its existing NWPs and associated general conditions and definitions, with some modifications. The Corps is proposing to issue one new NWP.[3] ”

Summary of provisions

The following is a summary of the provisions from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:[2]

“ The proposed new NWP would authorize activities to improve the passage of fish and other aquatic organisms through aquatic ecosystems. In addition, the Corps is proposing to modify some other NWPs to simplify and clarify those NWPs. The proposed modifications to the NWPs general conditions, and definitions are intended to reduce burdens on the regulated public and continue to comply with the statutory requirement that NWPs authorize only activities with no more than minimal individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects. The Corps is proposing to modify two of the 2021 NWPs (i.e., NWP 48 for commercial shellfish mariculture activities and NWP 56 for finfish mariculture activities) to address litigation on those NWPs.[3] ”

Significant impact

See also: Significant regulatory action

Executive Order 12866, issued by President Bill Clinton (D) in 1993, directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to determine which agency rules qualify as significant rules and thus are subject to OMB review.

Significant rules have had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. Executive Order 12866 further defined an economically significant rule as a significant rule with an associated economic impact of $100 million or more. E.O. 14215, issued on February 18, 2025, by President Donald Trump (R), required independent agencies to comply with all aspects of OMB review, including review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). The text of the rule states that OMB deemed this rule economically significant under E.O. 12866:

“ This action is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.[3] ”

Text of the rule

The full text of the rule is available below:[2]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Note: Estimated costs and estimated benefits here refer to estimated quantitative costs represented by dollar amounts. The estimates are a required part of the rulemaking process and are provided in the rule text. For qualitative costs or benefits, see the summaries of rule purpose and provisions.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Federal Register, "Proposal To Reissue and Modify Nationwide Permits," accessed July 7, 2025
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
v • e
The Administrative State
MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
Pillars
Reporting
Laws
Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Cases
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
Terms
Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
Bibliography
Agencies
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Proposal_To_Reissue_and_Modify_Nationwide_Permits_rule_(2025)&oldid=10686080"