Coal Jobs Protection Act of 2013
Latest action. Referred to the subcommitteeA smaller panel inside a standing committee with jurisdiction over a slice of its subject matter. Most hearings and the first markup usually happen here.Read the full definition (opens a new tab) on Water Resources and Environment.
Coal Jobs Protection Act of 2013 - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act or CWA) to revise the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or a state acting pursuant to an equivalent approved state program (permitting authority) to base a determination on approving a new or renewed permit covering discharges from a structure only on compliance with regulations issued by such permitting authority. Prohibits such permitting authority from basing such determination on the extent of the permit applicant's adherence to guidance issued by the Administrator, including: (1) the comprehensive guidance issued by the Administrator and dated April 1, 2010, (2) the proposed guidance entitled "Draft Guidance on Identifying Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act" and dated April 28, 2011, and (3) the final guidance proposed by the Administrator and dated July 21, 2011. Authorizes an applicant, if the permitting authority does not approve or deny an application for a new permit within 270 days after the date of receipt of an application, to operate as if the application were approved.
Prohibits the Administrator from disapproving or withdrawing approval of a state permit program under NPDES based on: (1) the failure of such program to incorporate or comply with such guidance, or (2) the implementation of a water quality standard that has been adopted by the state and approved by the Administrator.
Establishes environmental review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) for permits to discharge dredged or fill material into navigable waters.
Removes the authority of the EPA to prohibit the specification, or restrict the use, of an area as a disposal site for discharges of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States once the Army Corps of Engineers has issued a permit for the discharge.
Requires the EPA, before issuing a regulation, policy statement, guidance, response to a petition, or other requirement, or implementing a new or substantially altered program under the CWA, to analyze the impact of such action on employment levels or economic activity in each state.
The summary continues for 3 more paragraphs. Read it in full on Congress.gov
Written by analysts at the Congressional Research Service and published on Congress.gov, not by Civibrief. Summarized at the "Introduced in House" stage on May 6, 2013. It describes the bill, it is not the legal text.
Where is it in the process, and what happens next?
4 steps remain before this bill could become law.
The record's latest action, on May 7, 2013: Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
- Clearing the committees it was referred to, and being scheduled for a floor vote
- Passage by the House
- Passage by the Senate
- The President's signature. If the President vetoes it, two-thirds of both chambers must vote to override.
How likely is it to become law?
Civibrief does not forecast outcomes and this page has no opinion about this one. What the record supports is a base rate, which is a fact about the whole pile, not a prediction about this measure.
In the 113th Congress (2013-14), 296 of the 9,091 bills and joint resolutions introduced became law, about 3.3 percent. That count covers every measure at every stage, including the many that never left committee.
This one is not there yet: 4 steps are still outstanding, listed above.
Has anyone actually voted on it?
No. No roll call in this Congress cites this measure. That is the ordinary outcome: most measures never reach a recorded floor vote, and a committee ends most of them simply by not acting.
A vote is not the only thing that happens to a measure. Hearings, markups, and referrals are all recorded actions, and none of them is a vote of the full chamber.
Who is behind it?
Shelley Capito (R-WV) introduced it on May 6, 2013, and 21 members have since signed on as cosponsors.
They are 21 Republicans.
Cosponsoring is a formal signature on the text. It is not a commitment to vote for the measure, it does not bind anyone's party, and a long list of cosponsors is a measure of attention rather than of prospects.
How long has it been in play?
It was introduced on May 6, 2013, 4923 days ago. The most recent recorded action was 4922 days ago, on May 7, 2013.
Measures do not carry over. Anything the 113th Congress has not finished by January 3, 2015 dies when the term ends, and has to be introduced again from the start in the next Congress.
Every answer above is assembled from this measure's own record on Congress.gov and from published counts of what Congress has passed before. Civibrief does not predict outcomes and takes no position on any measure.
Vote history
- HouseIn committee, no floor vote yet
- SenateAwaits House passage
- PresidentAwaits both chambers