Overview
Title
Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Federal Implementation Plans Under the Clean Air Act for Indian Reservations in Idaho, Oregon and Washington
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The EPA wants to keep track of pollution on some Native American lands in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. They are asking people what they think about how they plan to collect this information.
Summary AI
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to renew a request to collect information related to air pollution control in Indian reservations in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. This proposal involves Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) under the Clean Air Act and is meant to help the EPA keep track of air pollution sources, issue permits, and ensure compliance with regulations. The agency is asking for public input on aspects of the information collection and plans to submit the proposal for approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Public comments are due by April 13, 2021, and several forms are associated with different permit applications and emissions reports for the areas involved.
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Federal Implementation Plans under the Clean Air Act for Indian Reservations in Idaho, Oregon and Washington to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described in this document. This is a proposal to extend the current ICR, which expires on August 31, 2021. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register details a proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to renew its information collection request associated with Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) under the Clean Air Act. This renewal pertains specifically to Indian reservations located in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. The information collected aims to aid the EPA in tracking air pollution sources and ensuring compliance with regulations. The initiative invites public commentary on the information collection proposal, which will be submitted for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Public comments are welcomed until April 13, 2021.
General Summary
The proposal is centered around several key objectives: managing activities related to air quality, issuing necessary permits, and maintaining compliance with existing FIPs. The EPA outlines specific forms associated with different types of permits and reports within these regions. Consequently, it allows stakeholders like tribal governments and industrial entities to adhere to environmental standards and regulations.
Significant Issues and Concerns
There are several areas in the document that could generate potential concerns. One primary concern is that the document does not provide clear details on how the collected information will be used beyond general purposes such as tracking emissions. This could raise privacy concerns, particularly for entities providing sensitive data. Additionally, some technical language used in the document, like the evaluation of burden estimates, may not be easily comprehensible to the general public, necessitating simplification for better understanding.
Another concern revolves around the estimated costs of $286,888 per year, as the document does not delineate how these costs are structured. This lack of transparency might lead to questions regarding efficient use of resources. Furthermore, there is ambiguity regarding the frequency of responses, which is vaguely described as "Annual or occasional." More precise definition could improve clarity and set clear expectations for stakeholders.
Impact on the General Public
The broader public may view this initiative as a positive step towards maintaining healthy air quality standards in Indian reservations. However, restricted public access due to the closure of the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room might limit some citizens' ability to provide feedback effectively, potentially diminishing community involvement in the decision-making process.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For tribal governments and operators in various industries within the reservations, these regulations and information collections are significant. The proposal may appear as added regulatory obligations, potentially increasing operational oversight or administrative workload. Still, it also presents an opportunity to work alongside the EPA to ensure sustainable practices are in place.
There’s also a notable decrease of 614 hours in the estimated burden on respondents compared to previous approvals, suggesting the EPA might have streamlined some processes based on feedback from stakeholders. Understanding this could be reassuring to affected parties, signaling a willingness from the EPA to optimize the information collection procedures.
In summary, while the proposal represents a vital effort towards improved air quality management, the EPA needs to address certain clarity issues and ensure a robust platform for public engagement, especially amidst the constraints imposed by the pandemic. Stakeholders should consider participating actively in the commentary phase to voice concerns or suggestions for improvement.
Financial Assessment
The document from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cites various figures related to the cost and burden associated with their Information Collection Request (ICR) concerning the implementation of the Clean Air Act for Indian reservations in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.
Total Estimated Cost
The document mentions a total estimated cost of $286,888 per year. This amount represents the cost incurred to manage and implement the information collection requirements necessary to regulate air emissions in the specified regions. Interestingly, the document notes that this sum includes $0 in annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs, implying that the cost primarily arises from processing information rather than investing in equipment or maintaining operations.
From a financial standpoint, determining the efficiency and utility of this expenditure is crucial. Given that the document does not provide a detailed breakdown of these costs, there may be concerns about whether these funds are being allocated effectively. Transparency would be enhanced by detailing how this figure is derived and explaining the specific areas where expenditures are expected, such as staff wages, technical evaluations, and reporting mechanisms. Such financial opacity could raise questions about potential wasteful spending.
Changes in Financial Burden
Another aspect of the document is the reported decrease of 614 hours in the estimated respondent burden compared to previous figures. While this reduction signifies a likely decrease in costs, there is no explicit explanation regarding how this change translates financially. Understanding whether this reduction in hours also equates to a reduction in expenses remains unanswered. Changes in cost are often crucial to stakeholders, as they could indicate increased efficiency or possibly, miscalculations in the previous estimates.
Addressing the ambiguity in these estimates, the financial section would benefit from additional elaboration on how these adjustments were calculated, aiding stakeholders in understanding the implications of these changes.
Frequency and Financial Implications
The document also references the frequency of responses as 'Annual or occasional', which leaves a wide scope for interpretation. From a financial perspective, this ambiguity might create uncertainties around the predictability of costs, be it related to routine operations or unexpected peaks and troughs in workload. A more precise definition could assist in better budget forecasting and financial planning.
In conclusion, while the document provides an overall cost figure and notes changes in the burden, it could significantly benefit from increased clarity and detailed financial transparency. This would not only resolve potential issues raised by interested parties but also provide a clearer picture of how public funds are being utilized in environmental management efforts.
Issues
• The document references a proposed information collection request (ICR) without providing specific details on how the information will be utilized beyond general purposes like tracking emissions and issuing permits, which could concern privacy advocates.
• Some of the language used in the document, such as 'evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information,' might be unclear to a layperson and could be simplified.
• The document mentions an estimated total cost of $286,888 per year without breaking down the specifics of this cost, which could raise questions about potential wasteful spending.
• The document does not clarify how the decrease of 614 hours in respondent burden was calculated, which might make it difficult for readers to understand the changes in estimates.
• The document involves multiple forms (e.g., EPA Form 7630-1, 7630-2, etc.) but does not provide detailed explanations on what each form entails, which could be seen as unclear or lacking transparency.
• The frequency of responses is listed as 'Annual or occasional,' which is ambiguous and could be more precisely defined to avoid confusion.
• The document notes the closure of the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room due to COVID-19, which might limit public access to submit comments, potentially affecting public participation.