FR 2025-03311

The notice issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pertains to the renewal of an information collection request (ICR) related to State-Assumed Programs under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The document indicates that the request is under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and seeks additional public comments before the proposal's approval date of February 28, 2025. This review specifically concerns states and tribes aiming to manage their own Section 404 permit programs, which oversee discharges into US waters. Notably, the EPA predicts that within three years, three states will undertake this program, impacting around 15,237 permit applicants with a total cost of about $6.6 million annually.

Significant Issues and Concerns

The document presents several areas that could benefit from further clarification. It lacks detailed criteria or a clear process description for how state or tribal requests to assume the Section 404 program are approved. This could lead to confusion among potential stakeholders who wish to understand the requirements involved. Furthermore, the use of the term "burden" lacks context, making it difficult for readers unfamiliar with regulatory jargon to grasp its significance without further explanation that connects it directly to regulatory definitions.

There is a mention of "scaling factors for individual activities" without elaborating on what these entail. Understanding these factors could help explain changes in workload or costs. Similarly, references to "seven state feasibility studies" are made without detailing the contributions or findings of these studies, which could enlighten readers about the basis for changes in the burden and cost estimates. Additionally, the document recognizes a significant decrease of 88,281 hours in the estimated respondent burden but does not clearly associate these reductions with specific activities or modifications.

Impact on the Public

Broadly, the document affects the general public by highlighting regulatory processes involved in environmental protection related to water resources. Efficient state administration of Section 404 programs potentially leads to more tailored and locally sensitive permitting processes, which could benefit local economies and ecosystems. However, the potentially confusing regulatory terms and lack of accessible details could frustrate the public's understanding and ability to engage in informed commentary during the open comment period.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For states and tribes, the opportunity to assume control over the Section 404 programs represents a chance to tailor environmental management to local contexts, which could align more closely with regional ecological and economic considerations. However, ambiguity in the approval process could pose challenges for those preparing to submit requests.

Permittees, including businesses engaged in construction or land development, are directly impacted by changes in permit processes since these could potentially streamline operations under state-controlled programs. Yet, they may also face challenges due to possible increases in administrative workloads if local processes become more rigorous or complex.

Overall, while the EPA aims to facilitate more localized oversight of water discharges through states and tribes, the documents would benefit from clearer communication and more detailed insights to effectively guide involved parties and ensure public understanding and engagement.

In the document under review, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides information on the financial elements associated with the administration of the Clean Water Act Section 404 State-Assumed Programs. The total estimated cost is $6,576,054 per year, which notably includes $0 in annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs. This implies that the costs involve labor rather than physical infrastructure or ongoing maintenance expenses.

Financial Summary

The $6,576,054 annual cost predominantly reflects the labor and administrative burden of implementing the Section 404 program as outlined by federal regulations. The cost is derived from the varied activities associated with program administration, including reviewing and approving state or tribal requests, processing permit applications, and compiling annual reports. One notable point is the exclusion of capital or maintenance expenditures, indicating that the program's financial planning concentrates on personnel and administrative resources rather than equipment or infrastructure.

Financial Implications and Identified Issues

Ambiguity in Criteria and Process for Approval

The document outlines financial allocations yet lacks specificity regarding the criteria for state or tribal approval for program assumption. This gap can create uncertainty in understanding how these financial resources facilitate the approval process, potentially leading to ambiguity about how funds assist states or tribes in meeting program expectations.

Understanding of 'Burden'

The document mentions changes in the "burden" without comprehensive elaboration, citing a decrease of 88,281 hours in respondent time. Although reduced burden suggests improved efficiency, the financial commentary does not expound on these implications in labor terms or associated cost savings directly tied to this reduction. Understanding how funds are optimized through this decreased burden could clarify whether the financial allocations directly translate to improved program performance and cost-effectiveness.

Scaling Factors and Feasibility Studies

Financial references hint at adjustments for scaling factors related to activities like permit applications but only superficially address their financial impacts. Moreover, there is vague mention of "seven state feasibility studies." The document's financial details would benefit from a more detailed explanation of how these studies influence budget allocations or reflect efficient use of funds.

Conclusion

While the document provides a broad overview of annual costs, the discussion of financial allocations could be enhanced by connecting these numbers more explicitly to program efficiencies, improvements, or anticipated impacts. Greater transparency and detail regarding the interplay between financial resources and program execution would assist stakeholders in understanding the complete financial scope and its practical implications.