FR 2021-04095

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted a detailed request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for an information collection initiative regarding modifications to secondary treatment requirements for marine water discharges. This information collection request (ICR) is part of regulatory measures under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and is registered under OMB Control Number 2040-0088. Historically, such requests aim to gather data from certain wastewater treatment facilities that have been granted waivers on some treatment requirements as long as they follow strict environmental criteria. The EPA seeks public comments, having already opened a commentary period in August 2020, and now extends it by 30 more days for further input.

General Overview

The document serves to notify the public and relevant stakeholders of the submitted ICR, providing a chance to offer comments or suggestions until the end of March 2021. The EPA is focusing on assessing whether wastewater treatment facilities continue to comply with the legal criteria necessary to retain their permits. This includes ensuring the protection of water quality, biological habitats, and beneficial uses of marine waters as outlined under section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act.

Significant Issues and Concerns

One primary concern is the technical nature of the language used, which may pose a barrier to understanding for the general public. Terms like "information collection request" and "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System" are not explained in layman's terms, potentially confusing readers unfamiliar with regulatory jargon.

Additionally, the document mentions an annual estimated cost of over $1.3 million, attributed to respondent activities which might seem substantial, particularly given no associated capital or operation & maintenance costs are mentioned. This could draw questions about the necessity and management of these costs.

The information collection involves 31 respondents, indicating a very focused scope. This narrow approach may suggest the regulation is not addressing broader industry impacts, which could limit its perceived effectiveness in improving nationwide water quality.

Public and Stakeholder Impacts

Broadly, the impact on the public could include enhanced environmental quality and health outcomes due to stricter oversight of wastewater treatment processes. Increased data collection and analysis may lead to better-informed decisions by regulatory bodies, potentially resulting in improved marine environments and public health benefits.

For specific stakeholders, including the municipal wastewater treatment facilities, this document prescribes additional administrative tasks. Facilities must compile and submit detailed application, monitoring, and toxics control data to ensure compliance, possibly affecting their operational procedures. This could lead to increased administrative burdens and associated costs, impacting their resource allocation.

For state agencies, the requirement to evaluate and certify compliance with state laws involves increased responsibility in set oversight functions. This could foster enhanced state cooperation and joint initiatives in marine conservation.

In conclusion, while the EPA's document outlines essential regulatory steps to uphold environmental standards, the effectiveness of its implementation may hinge on a more accessible presentation to the public and clearer justification and explanation of the associated regulatory costs and burdens.

The Federal Register document outlines a request submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning the modification of secondary treatment requirements for discharges into marine waters. This request involves financial considerations that have been highlighted in the document.

Financial Summary

The document estimates a total annual cost of $1,300,339 with no additional annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs. This financial allocation is tied specifically to the estimated burden on respondents, which in this context, refers to the municipalities and states impacted by or participating in this regulatory framework.

Relationship to Identified Issues

One notable issue within the document is the complexity of the language, which could make understanding the financial implications challenging for a general audience. The document references specific regulatory and legal terminologies such as the "information collection request (ICR)" and "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit." These references might obscure the financial aspect, making it difficult to discern how precisely the estimated costs break down or what they specifically cover.

Additionally, there is a lack of clarification on whether the estimated costs are justified or how they compare to previous costs. Though the document mentions an increase in the estimated burden, it does not detail what factors contributed to this increase or how they translate into the overall costs.

The specificity of the respondents, limited to 31 publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), raises questions about whether this financial estimate considers broader industry implications or just these particular entities. Since the document only focuses on these 31 POTWs, it may suggest that the financial impact and associated regulations are narrowly focused, potentially excluding wider environmental or economic assessments that could affect additional regions or industries.

The provided financial figures are detailed; however, they might not immediately present a complete picture to readers who are not familiar with regulatory frameworks and appropriations in environmental governance. To fully grasp the financial references, there would need to be additional context or breakdown of what the estimated burden of 44,985 hours per year entails in cost terms, and how these hours translate into operational or administrative financial obligations.