FR 2021-00245

The document in question is a notice published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), seeking public comments on an information collection request (ICR) related to small industrial-commercial-institutional steam generating units. This request involves an extension of a previously approved collection and aims to ensure compliance with environmental regulations through mandatory reporting and record-keeping by owners of steam generators with a heat input capacity between 2.9 MW and 29 MW. The deadline for additional public comments is February 10, 2021. The document also notes an expected annual industry growth which has led to increased respondent burdens and costs.

General Summary

The EPA's notice addresses the need for an extension of the ICR, which necessitates data collection from operators of small steam generating units. This requirement includes submitting performance tests, periodic reports, and records of operational events like start-ups and shutdowns. The intent is to verify environmental compliance at these facilities. The document outlines the estimated burdens—both in terms of time (219,000 hours per year) and financial cost ($38.3 million per year)—to comply with these regulations.

Significant Issues and Concerns

One of the main issues is the lack of clarity around the estimated industry growth rate of 11 respondents per year. The document does not detail the metrics or data justifying this growth assumption, raising questions about the accuracy of the increase in compliance burden and costs. Furthermore, while the cost of compliance is significant, amounting to $38.3 million annually, there is no detailed breakdown offered. This omission makes it difficult to assess whether these costs are reasonable or justified.

Additional concerns include the vague definitions provided for “affected facilities” and operational conditions such as "startup, shutdown, or malfunction." This ambiguity may cause confusion and inconsistent reporting among respondents. Moreover, there is a lack of transparency regarding how the EPA will determine compliance from the data submitted, which could impact accountability.

Broader Impact on the Public

For the general public, these regulations aim to protect air quality and public health by ensuring that steam generating units operate within safe environmental standards. However, the compliance costs associated with these requirements could potentially lead to increased operational expenses for facilities, possibly resulting in higher prices for related goods and services or increased financial burden on small businesses.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

Owners and Operators: The document primarily impacts the owners and operators of small steam generating units, imposing a mandatory compliance regime. These stakeholders bear the burden of both the extensive record-keeping requirements and the associated costs. The lack of clear directives may lead to additional administrative hardships.

Environmental Advocacy Groups: On the other hand, environmental advocacy groups may view these measures positively as they contribute towards stricter environmental oversight and potentially reduced emissions from industrial sources.

In summary, while the EPA’s effort toward enforcing environmental compliance is commendable, the document leaves several ambiguities that could have practical implications for compliance, transparency, and cost-efficiency. Addressing these concerns would help to ensure that stakeholders are better informed and more readily able to comply with the regulatory requirements.

The document outlines key financial components of the Information Collection Request (ICR) submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) related to small industrial-commercial-institutional steam generating units.

Summary of Financial Implications

The EPA estimates a total cost of $38,300,000 per year associated with this ICR. Within this total, $12,600,000 is attributed specifically to annualized capital setup and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. These figures are significant as they represent the financial burden that respondents—typically owners or operators of small steam-generating units—must shoulder to maintain compliance with EPA standards.

Financial References and Issues

The financial allocations outlined in the document highlight several areas where additional clarity might be beneficial:

1. Cost Breakdown and Justification:

   • While the document provides overall cost estimates, the breakdown or justification for these amounts is not detailed. Understanding whether $38,300,000 annually is cost-effective requires more granular information about where the money is spent. Knowing which areas consume the most resources could guide informed discussions on resource allocation and the potential for optimizing or reducing costs.

2. Industry Growth Assumptions:

   • The document predicts an increase of 11 new respondents per year. However, the precise metrics or data supporting this industry growth rate are not specified. Financial projections are dependent on accurate growth forecasts, so additional context around this assumption could reinforce the validity of the cost estimates.

3. Implications of Increased Respondents:

   • Interestingly, despite the predicted increase in respondents and associated O&M costs, there is no anticipated rise in capital costs. This aspect can appear contradictory unless further context indicates why capital expenses will remain level. Exploring this factor in more detail could clarify how the EPA ensures cost stability despite industry growth.

4. Potential Ambiguities and Reporting Consistency:

   • The document mentions requirements for reporting startup, shutdown, or malfunction events and how these impact costs, yet lacks a clear definition. Such ambiguities could lead to inconsistent reporting and difficulty in cost forecasting. Financial implications might include unexpected variances in operation and maintenance expenditures if reporting standards are not consistently applied.

By adding clarity to these financial aspects, stakeholders will be better positioned to understand, evaluate, and potentially address the economic implications of compliance with EPA regulations. Enhanced transparency and detailed financial reporting can guide both regulatory agencies and industry participants toward more informed decision-making processes.