FR 2025-03268

The recent notice from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) outlines an extension for the Information Collection Request (ICR) related to New Source Performance Standards for Lime Manufacturing. This initiative aims to ensure compliance with environmental regulations, specifically focusing on rotary lime kilns used to manufacture lime. The request is now under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which has provided a timeframe until March 31, 2025, for public comments.

Summary of the Document

The document, published by the EPA, discusses the continuation of established standards for lime manufacturing facilities. These standards, initially introduced in the 1970s and 1980s, are being reviewed for potential extension to assure ongoing compliance with environmental regulations. Despite being straightforward in the proposed aim, the document lacks detailed information about the actual environmental benefits achieved or expected through the continuation of these measures.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Several notable concerns arise from the document:

• Cost Increase Justification: While the document mentions updated costs using the CEPCI CE Index due to inflation, it provides no detailed breakdown or clear explanation of how these figures were derived. The absence of this transparency might lead to confusion or skepticism among stakeholders regarding the actual financial implications.

• Effectiveness and Impact: The document does not offer any insights into the effectiveness of the current standards or how they have positively impacted environmental outcomes. There's a missed opportunity to present data or case studies illustrating successful compliance and reductions in emissions.

• Respondent Estimate: The document estimates 41 respondents without justifying this number or outlining the method used to reach it. Stakeholders may question if this figure accurately represents the industry's scope and whether it considers all relevant entities.

• Public Involvement Clarity: While there is a call for public comment, the document lacks detailed guidance on how individuals can actively engage in the process beyond mere submission through the listed platforms. Providing more comprehensive instructions or examples of what constitutes effective commentary could enhance public engagement.

Broad Public Impact

The proposed extension of the ICR has potential implications for the public, predominantly through the lens of environmental health and regulation. Continuation of oversight on lime manufacturing could mean sustained or improved air quality due to strict adherence to emissions standards. On the other hand, with economic factors such as costs rising due to updated indices, there might be indirect effects on product pricing within related industries, influencing consumer prices.

Impact on Stakeholders

The document's impact varies across different stakeholders:

• Lime Manufacturing Companies: These entities need to navigate the regulatory landscape potentially without any modifications in the compliance burden. However, increased operational costs due to inflation might impact their financial strategies.

• Environmental Advocates: Without evidence of environmental outcomes, advocacy groups might find it challenging to leverage the document effectively in their campaigns for cleaner air standards.

• Regulatory Authorities: The EPA, and by extension the OMB, may face scrutiny over transparency issues and the adequacy of their public participation processes. Ensuring comprehensive guidance and justifying decision-making processes is crucial for maintaining credibility.

While the notice upholds existing regulations for lime manufacturing, the need for transparency, detailed impact assessments, and greater public participation guidance remains evident for effective stakeholder engagement and policy adherence.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notice discusses the financial aspects associated with an information collection request (ICR) related to the New Source Performance Standards for Lime Manufacturing. Here is a detailed look into these financial references:

Summary of Financial Allocations

The document specifies a total estimated cost of $544,000 per year for the information collection activities. This figure encompasses various financial obligations, including $61,500 in annualized capital or operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. These costs are associated with the implementation and maintenance of standards required under the regulations mentioned in the notice.

Analysis Related to Identified Issues

One of the key issues highlighted is the lack of detailed explanation regarding the increase in capital or O&M costs, aside from a general reference to adjusting the costs using the CEPCI CE Index. This broad mention does not provide specific insight into which factors or changes in the economic environment drove these cost adjustments. It leaves stakeholders with questions about how the estimated costs were calculated and justified over time.

Moreover, while the notice indicates that there have been no changes in the regulatory requirements that would impact the cost, the document itself does not delve into whether these costs yield corresponding improvements in environmental outcomes or compliance levels. This omission could make it difficult to assess the effectiveness or efficiency of the financial expenditure against its primary goals.

Additionally, the document does not discuss the methodology or criteria used to determine the number of respondents, which is stated as 41. Understanding the size and scope of respondents would further inform whether the estimated costs are accurate. In the absence of this clarification, there may be doubts about whether the financial allocations align with the realities of industry compliance.

Overall, the financial aspects, while detailed in terms of estimated amounts, could benefit from additional transparency and explanation to ensure that stakeholders, including industry participants and the general public, have a clear understanding of why these costs are necessary and how they translate into tangible benefits.