Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Petroleum Refineries (Renewal)
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The EPA wants to keep checking oil factories to make sure they follow rules to keep the air clean. They are asking people to give their thoughts about this plan until January 9, 2025.
Summary AI
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted a proposed extension for the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Petroleum Refineries according to the Paperwork Reduction Act, aiming to ensure continued compliance and monitoring of environmental standards. The public has until January 9, 2025, to submit comments, and the submission details are found in the EPA's official notice. This extension will continue requiring petroleum refineries to provide periodic reports and maintain records to demonstrate adherence to these standards, with an estimated annual cost of $2.83 million including maintenance. There is no change in burden from the last approved estimate, although costs have been adjusted for inflation.
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), NSPS for Petroleum Refineries (EPA ICR Number 1054.15, OMB Control Number 2060-0022) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2024. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register on May 18, 2023 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document is a notice from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about a proposed extension to the information collection requirements for petroleum refineries under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). This proposal involves extending the current collection requirements, which are in place to ensure refineries comply with established environmental regulations. The public is given until January 9, 2025, to submit their comments on this matter.
General Summary
The EPA has filed a request to extend the existing rules that require petroleum refineries to report information related to their emissions and compliance with the NSPS. These standards are crucial for maintaining environmental quality by regulating emissions from refineries. The proposal indicates that there will be no change in the reporting burden for these facilities, but costs have been adjusted to reflect inflation based on an industry index. The public's input is welcomed once more after a previous comment period earlier in the year.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One notable concern is the document’s lack of change in the burden estimates despite updates to costs. This might lead to questions about whether resources are being effectively allocated to monitoring emissions and enforcing compliance. Additionally, the use of technical jargon and regulatory references might make it challenging for the general public to fully grasp the document's implications, potentially limiting meaningful engagement in the comment process.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this document represents an ongoing effort to ensure that the petroleum refinery industry adheres to strict environmental standards, which is beneficial for air quality and public health. However, it is essential for stakeholders and the public to clearly understand these regulations and have the ability to provide informed feedback. The complexity of the regulatory language might hinder this understanding, limiting the broader public's ability to engage with the proposal effectively.
Impact on Stakeholders
For petroleum refineries, the document signals continuity in regulatory expectations, meaning they can rely on stable environmental regulations for the duration of the proposed extension. While the reporting requirements remain unchanged, refineries will face increased operational costs due to inflation adjustments. This could impact the financial aspects of compliance for these facilities. Environmental advocacy groups may view this continuation as positive since it maintains the status quo for emissions oversight, but they may also critique the efficiency of the existing system if it doesn't represent any improvement in environmental outcomes.
Overall, the EPA's notice reflects an intention to uphold current environmental standards while ensuring they remain economically feasible, given inflation. However, the effectiveness of this approach in promoting significant environmental benefits without imposing excessive burdens remains an open question for involved parties.
Financial Assessment
The document details financial aspects associated with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Information Collection Request for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) at petroleum refineries. These financial details provide insight into the economic considerations of enforcing compliance with environmental regulations.
Financial Overview and Allocation:
The EPA estimates the total annual cost related to this information collection request to be $2,830,000. This cost is broken down further to include $1,090,000 for annualized capital or operation and maintenance expenses. These amounts illustrate the financial burden placed upon petroleum refineries in adhering to the regulatory requirements set forth by the NSPS, highlighting the agency's commitment to environmental oversight while ensuring these costs are accounted for in maintaining compliance.
Context of Financial References:
The document notes that there is no change in the estimated burden from the previously approved collection request. However, it specifies that there is an increase in capital and operation and maintenance costs due to adjustments using the CEPCI Equipment Cost Index from 2005 to 2022 dollars. This adjustment reflects an inflationary response to the changing economic environment over that period, taking into account the real cost of maintaining and operating compliance mechanisms at the refineries. The decision not to alter the burden estimates aligns with the assertions that the industry growth is minimal, thereby not necessitating significant changes in financial or operational assumptions.
Relation to Identified Issues:
The consistent cost burden despite adjustments for capital and operation highlights a potential issue in transparency or efficiency regarding resource allocation. Although the industry has shown minimal growth, the unchanged burden estimates might imply a stable regulatory approach, but they also raise questions about whether the financial adjustments accurately portray the operational realities faced by the refineries. This could lead to inquiries regarding the efficiency and necessity of maintaining such costs if the regulatory environment or compliance measures have not evolved significantly over time.
Overall, while the financial aspects provide essential details on the costs associated with regulatory compliance for petroleum refineries, they also open up discussions on the sufficiency and appropriateness of resources allocated under these standards.
Issues
• The document does not indicate any specific potential for wasteful spending; however, the lack of change in burden estimates, despite adjustments in capital and operation costs, could raise questions about the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the resource allocation.
• The document does not mention any specific organizations or individuals that would preferentially benefit from the proposed ICR extension, which suggests that favoritism is not present.
• The language used in the document, particularly in the 'Abstract' section, might be considered overly complex due to the extensive use of regulatory references and technical jargon, which could be difficult for laypersons to understand.
• The document discusses historical modifications to regulations without clarifying how these changes specifically impact current compliance requirements, potentially leading to ambiguity.
• The summary section redundantly states that additional public comments are allowed for 30 days, across multiple sections, which might confuse the reader about the timeline without adding useful clarity.