FR 2025-01213

The document in question is a notice from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning an extension of an information collection requirement. This requirement falls under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for facilities involved in the transmission and storage of natural gas. The EPA has sent this request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), seeking to continue data collection on hazardous air pollutants generated by these facilities until at least February 28, 2025. The public has been given an additional 30 days to submit comments on this proposal, emphasizing the collaborative approach the agency encourages with this public notice.

General Summary

The document primarily serves as a notification of the EPA’s intention to renew the data collection related to natural gas facilities' environmental compliance. It affects facilities identified as major sources of hazardous air pollutants, specifically those that handle natural gas before it reaches consumers. The EPA proposes an estimated annual burden of 4,650 hours and a total cost of $586,000 for the facilities involved, with the obligation to report semi-annually. This initiative aims to ensure these facilities continue to adhere to environmental safety standards.

Significant Issues and Concerns

The document raises several areas of concern. Notably, it does not elaborate on why there is an increase in the number of respondents from previous collection cycles. Such information could provide clarity on whether there has been a growth in facilities or a change in regulation scope. Furthermore, the mention of increased burdens due to unspecified "adjustments" lacks detail, leaving stakeholders without an understanding of what precisely these adjustments involve.

The document outlines the financial burden on respondents, but it does not breakdown the $586,000 estimated yearly cost. Similarly, there is no explanation provided regarding the calculation of the annual burden hours—how the EPA arrived at the figure of 4,650 hours remains unclear. Additionally, the document uses specific technical terms such as 'NESHAP,' 'ICR,' and 'HAP' without offering explanations, which may confuse readers unfamiliar with such jargon.

Impact on the Public

For the general public, this document establishes that there are regulatory frameworks in place to monitor and control the emissions from natural gas transmission and storage facilities. This oversight can reassure communities that facilities handling potentially hazardous air pollutants are being scrutinized. However, the lack of clarity on key issues could lead to a misunderstanding of the scope and impact of these regulations.

Impact on Stakeholders

This document could have varying impacts on different stakeholders. For owners and operators of affected facilities, the continued compliance requirements and associated costs are significant. They may face increased operational and administrative burdens due to the proposed reporting and record-keeping obligations.

Conversely, for environmental advocacy groups and local communities, the extension represents a continued commitment from the EPA to monitor and regulate environmental emissions. It signifies ongoing governmental support for environmental quality and public health protection.

In summary, while the document highlights critical environmental regulatory processes related to hazardous air pollutants, the lack of detailed explanations on certain matters could hinder a complete understanding for stakeholders. Transparency in financial burdens and adjustments made over time would enhance the utility of such notices.

The document involves an information collection request (ICR) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Natural Gas Transmission and Storage. This commentary focuses on the financial references included within the document and highlights how these financial aspects relate to specific identified issues.

Financial Allocations:

The document mentions a total estimated cost of $586,000 per year. This amount is cited as encompassing the expenses related to the burden of compliance with the required information collection. Importantly, the document specifies that this total estimated cost includes $0 in annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs. This indicates that the cost projection is largely based on non-capital aspects, such as labor or administrative efforts needed to meet the compliance requirements.

Relationship to Identified Issues:

1. Lack of Cost Breakdown:
   One critical observation is that while the document provides an overall cost estimate of $586,000, it does not offer a detailed breakdown of what this figure includes beyond stating there are no capital or maintenance costs. Such a breakdown would provide clarity on whether this estimate is sufficient or accurately reflects the anticipated expenses for affected entities.

2. Explanation of Adjustments: The document notes an increase in burden resulting from adjustments but fails to explain these adjustments in detail. Without understanding how these adjustments impact financial allocations, it is challenging to assess why there is a change in the costs or what new factors might contribute to the reported total estimated burden and cost.

3. Calculation of Estimated Burden: The estimated burden of 4,650 hours per year is presented without context on its derivation. This lack of transparency makes it difficult to understand how these hours translate into the annual cost mentioned. The connection between time, labor efforts, and subsequently financial estimates requires clearer articulation to justify the annual financial obligations.

In summary, while the document specifies a financial outlay related to compliance with EPA’s NESHAP standards, it falls short in providing necessary clarifications regarding how this figure was reached or what specific elements contribute to this estimate. Addressing these gaps would enhance the understanding of the financial implications for stakeholders involved.