Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Benzene Emissions From Benzene Storage Vessels and Coke Oven By-Product Recovery Plants (Renewal)
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is asking people to share their thoughts about keeping track of how much benzene, a harmful chemical, is released from big storage tanks and special factories. They want to make sure the rules and checks continue so everyone stays safe, and they’re giving everyone another chance over 30 days to share opinions!
Summary AI
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking comments on the proposed extension of an information collection request (ICR) related to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for benzene emissions from storage vessels and coke oven by-product recovery plants. This request has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for their review. The ICR is currently valid until February 2025, and this notice opens an additional 30-day period for public comments. The EPA estimates that seven respondents will be affected, with a total annual burden of 1,130 hours and costs amounting to $143,000.
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Benzene Emissions from Benzene Storage Vessels and Coke Oven By-Product Recovery Plants (EPA ICR Number 1080.17, OMB Control Number 2060-0185) 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 February 28, 2025. 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, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), concerns a proposed extension of an information collection request (ICR) related to the regulation of benzene emissions. These emissions come from benzene storage vessels and coke oven by-product recovery plants, which are regulated under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). The EPA has submitted the request for a review to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and it is open for public comment until March 31, 2025.
General Summary
The EPA is seeking input on continuing its existing regulations regarding certain industrial emissions of benzene, a known hazardous air pollutant. This proposal is an extension of the current information collection requirement, which is valid until February 2025. The extension aims to ensure compliance with existing environmental standards by requiring affected facilities to report various operational details related to benzene storage and by-product recovery processes.
Significant Issues
The document contains numerous technical terms and legal references, which could make it challenging for the general public to fully understand. Details such as specific Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts and regulatory subparts add layers of complexity that might necessitate specialized knowledge for complete comprehension. Furthermore, the exact duration of the proposed extension beyond the currently valid date of February 2025 is not clearly defined, potentially leading to misunderstandings about future compliance requirements.
The document mentions a reduction in the estimated burden hours but offers scant details about the reasons behind the decrease in the number of respondents. This lack of clarity could raise questions about the accuracy of the EPA's consultation with the industry.
Public Impact
For the general public, especially those living near affected facilities, the continued enforcement of these standards may reassure them about the EPA's commitment to regulating hazardous air pollutants. This regulation is crucial in protecting public health and maintaining air quality standards.
Impact on Stakeholders
Industry Stakeholders: Facilities involved would need to maintain meticulous records and periodically report on benzene emissions to comply with these standards. While the document states that there are no additional capital or maintenance costs associated with this collection requirement, stakeholders might still bear indirect costs related to compliance monitoring and documentation efforts.
Regulatory Authorities: For the EPA and other regulatory bodies, the extension helps in maintaining oversight and ensuring that existing environment-protection standards are upheld.
Recommendations for Improvement
The document would benefit from a more straightforward explanation of the proposed extension's duration. Consolidating the instructions regarding public comments into a single section could also enhance clarity and help avoid confusion.
By addressing these issues, the EPA could make the document more accessible and ensure better public understanding and participation. Overall, while the intent to regulate benzene emissions is critical for safeguarding both environmental and public health, clearer communication could bolster stakeholder engagement and compliance.
Financial Assessment
The document discusses a proposal submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the collection of information under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for benzene emissions. As part of the document, financial aspects related to the information collection are referenced and are crucial to understanding the broad context of compliance and administrative costs associated with environmental regulations.
Total Estimated Cost
The total estimated cost referenced in the document is $143,000 per year. This figure includes all expenses related to compliance, such as labor for information collection, reporting, and any necessary administrative activities. Interestingly, this cost does not include any annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs, which are cited as $0. This means that the EPA anticipates no need for further infrastructure investment or ongoing maintenance expenses associated with the information collection process.
Contextual Analysis
One potential issue highlighted by the financial references is the lack of explanation for why the annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs are projected to be $0. Without this context, readers may find it challenging to understand whether existing infrastructure adequately covers these needs or whether this is an optimistic assumption by the EPA.
Additionally, the document mentions a reduction in the estimated burden in terms of respondent hours due to a decrease in the number of entities required to provide information. However, it does not detail how this decrease impacts the $143,000 cost estimate directly. It may suggest that fewer participants mean reduced labor costs, but further context would assist in comprehensively understanding the financial implications.
Presentation and Clarity
The financial information, while stated succinctly, would benefit from a more detailed breakdown. Given that the document aims to secure public comments, clarity around why certain financial decisions—such as not anticipating any operation and maintenance costs—are made would likely affect public perception and feedback. Ensuring transparency in how these figures are calculated can help foster trust and encourage informed commentary from stakeholders.
In conclusion, the financial figures presented are vital to understanding the broader regulatory and compliance landscape associated with this EPA initiative. However, additional context around the decision-making process for these estimates would enhance the document's clarity and utility to those interested in the economic facets of environmental regulation compliance.
Issues
• The document contains technical jargon and legal references (such as CFR parts and regulatory subparts) that may be difficult for a layperson to understand without specialized knowledge.
• The abstract and summary sections repeat information, which could be streamlined for better readability.
• The phrase 'This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through February 28, 2025.' is unclear because it doesn't specify what the extension period will be beyond the current approval.
• The cost section states 'includes $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs' without explaining why there are no associated costs, which could be important for understanding the financial implications.
• The total estimated burden states there is a decrease in hours 'due to an adjustment decrease in the number of respondents,' but does not provide details on how the number of respondents was determined or why it decreased.
• The document references 'Courtney Kerwin, Director, Information Engagement Division' at the end, which might suggest it's part of an official endorsement or decision, without further clarification of this role.
• The mention of the comment period and the channels through which comments can be submitted are spread across multiple sections, which may cause confusion. This information could benefit from being consolidated.