Law Offices
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 100
Washington, D.C. 20006-6801
202-955-3000
FAX 202-955-5564
www.hklaw.com
10020014
Atlanta
Boston
Bradenton
Chicago
Fort Lauderdale
Jacksonville
Lakeland
Los Angeles
Melbourne
Miami
New York
International Offices:
Buenos Aires'
Mexico City
Rio de Janeiro
"RepresaUtwOtas
Northern Virginia
Orlando
Providence
. St. Petersburg
San Antonio
San Francisco
Seattle
Tallahassee
Tampa
Washington, D.C.
West Palm Beach
Sao Paulo
Tel Aviv*
Tokyo
May 23, 2001
ROBERT L. RHODES
202-457-5943
Internet Address:
rrhodes@hklaw.com
Administrator Christine Todd Whitman
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building (MC 1101A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Administrator Whitman:
On behalf of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and
Technology (NACEPT), I am pleased to forward the NACEPT Council's
comments on the Agency's proposed Fiscal Year 2002 Enforcement Grant
Program (see enclosure). The review was conducted by the Compliance
Assistance Advisory Committee (CAAC), a subcommittee under the auspices of
NACEPT.
The CAAC was convened under NACEPT to provide assistance to EPA in
the development of an annual EPA-wide compliance assistance plan that will
outline agency priorities and commitments for compliance assistance activities.
The CAAC recently had an opportunity to review a memorandum entitled
"Discussions with States and Tribes Regarding Proposed FY 2002 Enforcement
Grant Program," issued by
Ms. Sylvia K. Lowrance, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (April 30, 2001). The memorandum
referenced the inclusion of $25 million in the President's FY 2002 Budget for
grants to state and tribal enforcement programs, and directed initiation of "a
broad consultation process to solicit views about options and issues associated
with the new program."
-------
-------
Administrator Christine Todd Whitman
May 23, 2001
Page 2
The Council and I look forward to receiving your response and are
available to participate in EPA's discussions with stakeholders relevant to the
Enforcement Grant Program.
Robert L. Rhodes, Jr.
Chair, NACEPT
RLR:nct
Enclosure
cc: Sylvia Lowrance, Assistant Administrator/OECA (Acting)
Mike Stahl, Deputy Assistant Administrator/OECA (Acting)
Bruce Weddle, Deputy Director, Office of Compliance
James Edwards, Director/Compliance Assistance Division
Richard Sustich, Co-Chair/CAAC
JoAnn Herman, DFO/CAAC
Gwen Whitt, DFO/NACEPT
-------
-------
Administrator Christine Todd Whitman
May 23, 2001
PageS
Recommendations Regarding: Options
for Use of Funds by States and Tribes
The memorandum described three potential options for the use of grant
funds. Option 1 would allow use of funds to address particular environmental
problems through assistance, incentives, inspection, and/or enforcement. Option
2 would allow use of funds for building capacity of state and tribal enforcement
and compliance assurance programs. Option 3, would give states and tribes the
choice of either problem-based or capacity-building approaches.
Currently, the Federal government provides approximately $525 million
annually to states and tribes to carry out delegated program activities.
Additionally, $220 million is given to tribes for a variety of purposes. Of this,
approximately $131 million is used for enforcement activities. Therefore, the FY
2002 Enforcement Grant Program will increase funding to states and tribes by
less than 20 percent overall.
In considering the three options cited above, EPA noted that, while Option
1 (Problem-based strategies) would be somewhat more difficult to administer
because of the complexity in reviewing grant proposals, this option's focus on
specific strategies and outcomes measurement would be more likely to produce
environmental benefits than Options 2 and 3.
Due to the potential for greater environmental benefits, the NACEPT
recommends that EPA focus on problem-based strategies in selecting projects for
funding under the subject program. Additionally, because this funding is
supplemental to current funding for traditional enforcement activities, EPA
should focus on projects that promote alternatives to traditional enforcement.
Proposals that incorporate integrated strategies using a well-balanced
combination of compliance assistance, inspections and enforcement should be
preferred, particularly where compliance assistance promotes the diffusion of
advanced pollution prevention practices in the regulated community.
Options for Allocation of Funds:
The memorandum described three potential options for allocation of funds
through a competitive grant process. Option 1 would allocate funds to states and
tribes proportionally based on population or other relevant factors. Option 2
would allocate a base share of funds to each approved project, with additional
funding dispersed based on the relative merits of the approved projects. Option 3
would allocate funds on a tiered approach, with capacity-building projects being
funded within one range and problem-based projects within a higher range.
-------
-------
Administrator Christine Todd Whitman
May 23, 2001
Page 4
Again, because problem-based strategies have the greatest potential for
environmental benefits, the NACEPT recommends that EPA allocate funds
strictly on a competitive basis, considering the relative environmental benefits of
each approved project.
WASl #976533 vl
-------
------- |