FR 2021-00904

The document at hand is a notice from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the proposition to extend an information collection request (ICR) associated with State-Assumed Programs under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This initiative concerns the delegation of permit programs from the federal level to state governments for specific water-related discharges. This document outlines the EPA’s desire for public comments to refine the process and address potential improvements, ensuring the collection of information serves its intended purposes efficiently and accurately. The costs and time commitments for stakeholders involved in these programs are considerable, spurring a need for careful scrutiny.

General Summary

The EPA intends to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which will facilitate the Clean Water Act's Section 404 State-Assumed Programs. This extension is earmarked to allow state management of certain permitting responsibilities related to water discharge. The agency is soliciting public feedback concerning the need, accuracy, and efficiency of the proposed collection. The current proposal has notable human and financial resource implications, with significant hours allocated for state and permit applicant tasks and a multimillion-dollar budget forecast. The information will be publicly accessible to maintain transparency.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Several significant issues arise in this notice. Firstly, the document lists substantial costs associated with the program but lacks detail regarding the breakdown or rationale of these expenses. Additionally, there is a noted increase in the estimated burden on respondents, quantified at an additional 45,250.4 hours. However, the reasoning is broad and lacks specificity, particularly about recent policy changes affecting these metrics.

Moreover, the data used for assumptions predominantly references Michigan and New Jersey, raising questions about its representativeness for other states. The potential consequences are misestimations of costs and workload if these states are not adequately reflective of broader scenarios. Lastly, the methods for submitting public comments are dispersed, potentially creating confusion for stakeholders who wish to engage in the consultation process.

Broader Public Impact

Broadly, this document signifies a shift towards greater autonomy and responsibility for states in managing water permits. The public stands to benefit from potential efficiencies and localized management that state autonomy could bring. However, there are concerns about the burden imposed by these changes, both in terms of financial costs and administrative load, which could indirectly impact taxpayers and community resources if states require additional funding or personnel to handle new responsibilities.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For specific stakeholders, the impact is tangible. State governments potentially inheriting the programs will need to adapt to new compliance, reporting requirements, and they may incur significant costs and administrative burdens. Permit applicants, or businesses that require such permits, face an increased workload in submitting applications to state instead of federal authorities, especially if new systems or requirements are more stringent than previous regulations.

On the positive side, these stakeholders also gain a streamlined, state-led process that could be more responsive and finely tuned to local conditions and needs. State environments, economies, and communities may benefit from more tailored water management policies and decisions. However, the balance between burden and benefit hinges on how efficiently states manage the transition and ongoing responsibilities, and whether the EPA successfully addresses current document concerns through public feedback and detailed planning.

The document regarding the "Clean Water Act Section 404 State-Assumed Programs" includes several significant financial references that are worth examining for clarity and transparency.

One of the primary financial allocations mentioned in the document is the $5,641,625.21 estimated total cost for four state-assumed programs under section 404 permit programs. This figure represents the cost burden on states administering these programs. Additionally, there are costs specifically associated with permittees in state-assumed programs amounting to $1,266,824.13. However, the document does not provide a detailed breakdown of how these costs were calculated or what specific activities contribute to these figures. This lack of detail makes it challenging to understand the specifics of the financial burden on states and permittees.

Furthermore, the document highlights that there are $0 capital or operation and maintenance costs. While this might seem beneficial in reducing expenses, the absence of these costs could imply that all necessary infrastructure is already in place or that ongoing maintenance will not require additional funding. Without further clarification, stakeholders might be uncertain about the sustainability of the program funding.

The cost to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for related activities is cited as $502,251.20 in annual labor costs, again with $0 capital or operation and maintenance costs. This financial reference shows the EPA’s investment in terms of personnel time dedicated to overseeing these programs. While it is clear that labor is the main expenditure for the EPA, there is no breakdown provided that might explain what roles or tasks these costs cover, which could be useful for understanding how labor resources are allocated.

A noted issue connected to financial allocations is the increase in the total estimated respondent burden by 45,250.4 hours compared to the previous information collection request. The document explains this increase generally, attributing it to several factors including policy changes, but does not thoroughly detail how these factors translate to increased hours or costs. A detailed justification would provide better insight into why more resources are required and whether they align with the estimated financial allocations.

Finally, the document references using data from Michigan and New Jersey to estimate costs and burdens. However, it does not clarify how representative this data is for other states that may assume the program. This could potentially lead to significant variations in cost estimates and burden calculations, impacting fiscal planning and resource allocation.

Overall, the financial references in the document present a broad picture of the costs associated with state-assumed programs, but they fall short in providing specific details necessary for a complete understanding of the financial implications. Providing more granular data and context would improve transparency and assist stakeholders in making informed decisions.