House commission hears testimony on bill to shorten permit timelines and make late agency recommendations nonbinding

The House Commission on Economic Development continued hearings June 16 on Senate Project 81, a measure that would amend Article 8.4 and Article 19.12 of Ley 161 de 2009 (the law that enacted Puerto Rico’s permit reform) and modify an inciso of Ley 23 (the organic law of the Department of Natural and Environmental Resources, DRNA) to require that if an agency or municipality does not issue recommendations to the Oficina de Gerencia de Permisos (OPE) inside statutory deadlines, those agencies’ recommendations will be treated as absent and “will not be binding” on the final permit decision.

The change is intended to shorten administrative delay and make permit determinations “based on the totality of the administrative record,” a Department of Economic Development (DIDEC) attorney told the commission. Bianca Rivera Román, representing the department, said DIDEC and the OPE support the bill’s aim to “desregulación, simplificación y modernización” of the permitting process but recommended giving OPE discretion to grant additional time to agencies or municipalities that affirmatively request it.

The commission heard technical detail and objections: Carlos Rubén Santa Arroyo of the Junta de Planificación said the planning board supports transparency and speed but urged that OPE be given enough expert staff to evaluate permits now managed by DRNA and others and that any transfer of responsibilities consider existing federal agreements (for example, with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Santa Arroyo recommended that, if the bill is adopted, legislators and regulators include a reasonable transition period so OPE can assume functions without creating confusion or delays.

Officials and lawmakers discussed how the OPE has used administrative tools and new software to reduce backlogs. DIDEC and OPE witnesses said executive orders created a task force that has implemented a Single Business Portal and a priority “tray” for federally funded, emergency, or strategic projects with a 20-day target for agency input; an administrative order uses that 20-day benchmark for expedited review. The department also described use of an artificial-intelligence filter that it says validates submissions and helps triage applications; witnesses said the AI is intended as a pre-check and that OPE staff perform the final review. DIDEC asked the commission to allow OPE a discretionary extension (they suggested a practical range of 20–30 days in some cases) when specialist input is clearly necessary.

Members of the commission pressed for safeguards. Representative Denis Márquez Lebrón asked what would happen if an agency issued recommendations after the deadline but before a final OPE decision; witnesses said OPE could still request or solicit input if the agency’s expertise is needed and that the final administrative determination must rest on the full file. Speakers also raised enforcement questions for professionals who certify plans; Carlos Santa Arroyo described the board of planners’ random and complaint-driven audits of licensed professionals and confirmed that repeated violations have led to revocation proceedings and court actions in the past.

Environmental oversight and municipal capacity were recurring concerns. Commissioners asked whether DRNA and other regulators had sufficient agrimensores, technical staff and resources inside OPE after the transfer of functions contemplated by law 161; witnesses acknowledged staffing gaps and said personnel transfers and new hires are part of the implementation plan but provided no comprehensive staffing figures on the record, offering instead to provide data within five days.

No formal vote was taken in the hearing. DIDEC and the junta asked the commission to adopt the bill with amendments that: (1) explicitly allow OPE to request additional time when specialist reviews are necessary; (2) require OPE to secure sufficient environmental and technical staff before assuming final authority over functions now exercised by DRNA; and (3) clarify interaction with federal agencies and existing delegation agreements.

The commission asked witnesses to submit specified data about approvals, staff levels and audits in the next five days. Members said they would continue the record and consider proposed language clarifications before a committee vote.