FR 2024-29348

Overview

Title

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Glass Manufacturing Plants (Renewal)

Agencies

ELI5 AI

The EPA wants to keep checking how factories that make glass are doing, to make sure they're following the rules about how much pollution they create. They are asking people to share their thoughts about this plan until January 13, 2025.

Summary AI

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted a proposal to extend its information collection request regarding new source performance standards (NSPS) for glass manufacturing plants. This extension aims to ensure compliance with federal regulations for glass melting furnaces at such facilities. The public has an additional 30 days until January 13, 2025, to submit comments on this proposal. The estimated cost and burden associated with these regulations remain the same as previously approved, with some increase in operation and maintenance costs due to updated price indexes.

Abstract

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), NSPS for Glass Manufacturing Plants (EPA ICR Number 1131.14, OMB Control Number 2060-0054), 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.

Type: Notice
Citation: 89 FR 101011
Document #: 2024-29348
Date:
Volume: 89
Pages: 101011-101011

AnalysisAI

The recent document from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerns a proposed extension of an information collection request related to new source performance standards (NSPS) for glass manufacturing plants. This request, if approved, will continue to ensure that glass melting furnaces at these facilities operate in compliance with federal regulations. Members of the public are invited to submit their comments on this proposal until January 13, 2025.

General Summary

The EPA is seeking to extend its obligation to gather and review data from glass manufacturing plants to verify adherence to environmental standards. These standards have been in place since the late 1970s and apply to all glass melting furnaces in both new and existing facilities. The process involves regular notifications, performance testing, reporting, and record-keeping by these facilities to ensure compliance.

Significant Issues or Concerns

Several aspects of the document might not be immediately clear to readers without a technical background:

  1. Unclear Extension Timeline: While the document seeks an extension, it does not specify the new termination date beyond the current approval of December 31, 2024. Clarification on the duration of the proposed extension could help stakeholders better prepare for future compliance expectations.

  2. Cost and Burden Allocation: Although the document provides a total estimated cost and burden, including specific numbers for annual costs, it might not be comprehensively explained how these figures are divided between initial costs and ongoing maintenance. This could be important for stakeholders to understand their financial commitments.

  3. Technical Language: Terms like the "CEPCI Equipment Cost Index" and phrases indicating "no change in burden" might be obscure to those unfamiliar with regulatory parlance and economic indexing, potentially leading to misunderstandings about financial impacts.

Broader Public Impact

For the general public, continuing this information collection ensures that environmental standards aimed at reducing pollution from glass manufacturing are upheld. This is important not only for environmental health but also for community safety near these manufacturing plants. Maintaining these standards signifies the government's ongoing commitment to air quality and public health, particularly in areas with significant industrial activity.

Specific Stakeholder Impact

  • Glass Manufacturing Facilities: These businesses will need to continue complying with the regulations, which involve significant administrative and operational commitments. While the costs are said to remain stable, a precise understanding of the structured financial burdens is crucial for their financial planning.

  • Environmental Advocates: For those concerned with environmental protection, the continued enforcement of regulations represents a safeguard against potential industrial pollution, aligning with broader goals of sustainability and environmental responsibility.

  • Regulatory Bodies: Agencies involved in monitoring and enforcing these standards might see benefits in the form of streamlined data collection and clearer accountability, although they may also face challenges ensuring the compliance of facilities across varying operational scales.

In conclusion, while the EPA’s proposed extension of the ICR for glass manufacturing plants aims to uphold existing environmental standards, the document could be more explicit regarding certain technical and administrative details to facilitate better comprehension among stakeholders. The sustained effort to regulate emissions from these plants underlines an ongoing dedication to environmental health and compliance.

Financial Assessment

The document under review discusses the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) submission of an information collection request (ICR) for glass manufacturing plants. This involves specific financial allocations that have been outlined, primarily relating to the management and compliance processes for these facilities.

Financial Summary

The document highlights a total estimated cost of $444,000 per year associated with the implementation and compliance with the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for glass manufacturing plants. This cost primarily includes $337,000 in annualized capital/startup and/or operation and maintenance costs.

Financial Allocations and Issues

The financial references in the document indicate how funds are distributed between different cost components. However, the allocation between capital/startup and maintenance costs might not be clearly demarcated for individuals unfamiliar with these processes. This lack of clarity may pose a challenge in understanding exactly where the bulk of funds is directed unless they are specified further, such as the exact capital costs and the operational expenses.

The document also mentions an increase in operation and maintenance costs, which is attributed to an adjustment using the CEPCI Equipment Cost Index. For those unfamiliar with the CEPCI (Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index), this might not immediately explain why or how these costs have increased. This index traditionally reflects changes in capital equipment costs, but the document does not provide a layperson's explanation, leaving room for confusion about the practical implications of such an adjustment.

Clarification of Financial Terms

Within the regulatory context of these financial references, the term 'burden' typically relates to both the time and financial resources needed to meet compliance requirements. The document indicates that there is no change in this burden from the most recently approved ICR, which suggests that neither the costs nor the efforts required have significantly changed since prior evaluations. Vocabulary such as "burden" can be technical, so clearer communication that explicitly states what the burden involves would benefit general readers.

In conclusion, while the document provides specific figures on costs, the explanations could benefit from further breakdowns to better inform those without specialized knowledge of industry-specific indexes or compliance-related financial terminology.

Issues

  • • The abstract mentions an ICR currently approved through December 31, 2024, but the proposed extension details such as the new end date are unclear.

  • • The total estimated cost and burden figures, though detailed, may not clearly explain the allocation between capital/startup and maintenance costs to a layperson.

  • • The document references changes in operation & maintenance costs using an index (CEPCI Equipment Cost Index) without further explanation for readers unfamiliar with it.

  • • Language such as 'no change in burden from the most-recently approved ICR' might be unclear to non-expert readers without specifying what the 'burden' involves in practical terms.

Statistics

Size

Pages: 1
Words: 1,052
Sentences: 43
Entities: 96

Language

Nouns: 344
Verbs: 72
Adjectives: 41
Adverbs: 17
Numbers: 70

Complexity

Average Token Length:
5.10
Average Sentence Length:
24.47
Token Entropy:
5.38
Readability (ARI):
18.17

Reading Time

about 3 minutes