Comment submitted by B. Muhlbacher

I’m writing to oppose any additional extension of the Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) deadline for states, tribes, and local governments to submit applications for compliance of their electronic reporting systems. This comment is a direct response to both the Direct Final Rule and the Proposed Rule, both published on Friday, October 17 in Federal Register volume 73. 73 Fed. Reg 61737 and 61773 (document IDs EPA-HQ- OEI-2003-0001 and HQ-OEI-2003-0001-0276). According to EPA’s own rule preamble, CROMERR sets forth “the minimum set of requirements for electronic document receiving systems necessary to ensure the legal dependability of the electronic documents such systems receive.” 70 Fed. Reg. 59857. Failure to implement the CROMERR requirements on the already delayed schedule means, under EPA’s own reasoning, that state, tribe, and local government electronic reporting systems will NOT meet the MINIMUM standards necessary to ensure the legal dependability of the documents they receive. EPA and those states without compliant systems will simply not be able to enforce the Nation’s environmental laws with the electronic files they receive. Compliance with the law without enforcement is unlikely. Allowing this to happen would be one more gutting of our environmental laws designed to protect each and every American from unsafe air and water. Under the current Administration, this flaunting of environmental protections has become commonplace. I suppose it would be an expected slap-in-the-face to the American public as the Bush Administration and its appointees leave their red mark on our collective cheeks as they leave the building. This further gutting of environmental requirements cannot be allowed to happen. It’s not as if states have not had sufficient time to comply. Based upon what I’ve heard, EPA has already received dozens of applications from states with existing systems. States have already had over three years to come into compliance! This is plenty of time to specify a computer system, change laws, and implement the system. The existing deadline does not even require compliance—it merely requires an application be submitted. Given the fact the deadline was extended once already, there’s no excuse for needing an additional extension. I wish my professors had given me three years to complete a paper. But even if there are a few states that have not got their acts together by this point, CROMERR provides for case-by-case extensions. I’m sure that those few states that may want a delay could come up with some basis on which such a delay could be granted for those that need it. Finally, granting this delay will have the likely effect of causing states that were ready to submit, to not submit their applications. This will mean EPA and those states will be unable to enforce United States’ environmental laws in more areas than if case-by-case extensions were granted. In summary, the Direct Final Rule should not be allowed to go into effect. Additionally, this comment and the rationale herein should be sufficient to cause the withdrawal of the proposed rule.