Commonsense Permitting for Job Creation Act of 2013

Bill: 113-hr-2937
Sponsor: full_name: Rep. Hurt, Robert [R-VA-5]
Introduced: 2013-08-01
Policy area: Environmental Protection
Subjects: Administrative law and regulatory procedures

Aquatic ecology

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Environmental regulatory procedures

Industrial facilities

Licensing and registrations

Solid waste and recycling

Water quality
Latest action: action_date: 2013-08-02
text: Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.

Summaries:
action_date: 2013-08-01
action_desc: Introduced in House
text: <p>Commonsense Permitting for Job Creation Act of 2013 - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to prevent guidelines applicable to permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters at disposal sites from prohibiting specification of a site due to the lack of a final site plan resulting from the lack of an identified end user or industry or industrial classification when determining whether there is a practicable alternative to a proposed discharge that would result in less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem.</p>

tv_txt: I 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 2937 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES August 1, 2013 Mr. Hurt (for himself, Mr. Griffith of Virginia , Mr. Hanna , and Mr. Owens ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure A BILL To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with respect to the guidelines for specification of certain disposal sites for dredged or fill material.

1. Short title This Act may be cited as the Commonsense Permitting for Job Creation Act of 2013 . 2. Guidelines for specification of certain disposal sites Section 404(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act ( 33 U.S.C. 1344(b) ) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: Such guidelines may not prohibit the specification of a site due to the lack of a final site plan resulting from the lack of an identified end user or industry or industrial classification for the site when determining whether there is a practicable alternative to a proposed discharge that would result in less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem. .