Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions From Glass Manufacturing Plants (Renewal)
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The EPA wants to keep checking on factories that make glass to make sure they don't put too much harmful stuff in the air. They need permission to keep asking these factories for information, and people can tell them what they think about this until the end of March 2025.
Summary AI
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to extend the information collection request related to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for inorganic arsenic emissions from glass manufacturing plants. This extension, already approved until February 2025, allows for additional public comments until March 31, 2025. The EPA will continue collecting information to ensure these plants comply with environmental regulations, impacting around 16 glass manufacturing facilities. The estimated annual cost for compliance is $470,000, including maintenance expenses updated for inflation.
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing Plants (EPA ICR Number 1081.14, OMB Control Number 2060-0043) 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 in question is a notice from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about extending an information collection request (ICR) related to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for inorganic arsenic emissions from glass manufacturing plants. This notice announces the EPA's submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for a continuation of this ICR, which is already approved until February 28, 2025. An additional comment period allows the public to provide their thoughts until March 31, 2025. This initiative affects approximately 16 glass manufacturing facilities.
Commentary
General Summary
The EPA is aiming to ensure that glass manufacturing plants continue to comply with standards that manage inorganic arsenic emissions. The document outlines that this compliance involves information collection, initially and semiannually, from these plants. The activities associated with the ICR are a part of the government’s broader commitment to air quality standards and public health protection.
Significant Issues
The document raises a few concerns worth noting:
Lack of Specificity: The notice does not clearly specify the exact nature of the information that will be collected from these manufacturing plants. This could potentially lead to uncertainties among the respondents about what is expected of them.
Use of Acronyms: There are several acronyms such as NESHAP, ICR, OMB, and CEPCI that are not defined in the document, potentially confusing readers who are not familiar with environmental regulations.
Cost Details: While the total estimated cost for compliance is provided, there is no detailed breakdown of how these costs are calculated. This lack of transparency may obscure understanding regarding the financial impact of compliance.
Lack of Outcome Description: The notice does not explicitly mention the benefits or outcomes of the ICR renewal, making it difficult for the public and stakeholders to assess the value of the proposed activity.
Impact on Public and Stakeholders
Broadly, this document represents an ongoing effort by the EPA to monitor and manage environmental impacts, specifically related to air quality. For the general public, ensuring that glass manufacturing facilities comply with emission standards is a positive step towards reduced pollution and enhanced public health.
For the glass manufacturing sector, this ICR extension implies an ongoing obligation to document and report emissions, which may involve significant resources in terms of time and cost. However, by ensuring compliance, these facilities contribute to a healthier environment and potentially avoid penalties associated with non-compliance.
Positive and Negative Outcomes
Positive: For the community, the continued oversight of emissions likely contributes to improved air quality, thereby benefiting public health. For regulatory bodies, this reinforces their mission to enforce standards that protect the environment.
Negative: For glass manufacturing facilities, the cost associated with compliance might be a burden, especially in an industry described as having low or non-existent growth. The lack of clarity about what is specifically required can add an extra layer of complexity for these entities.
In conclusion, while the EPA's notice serves an essential regulatory function, its effectiveness could be improved through clearer communication about the specific requirements and benefits of the ICR.
Financial Assessment
The Federal Register document discusses the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) submission of an information collection request (ICR) for review and approval. This document brings forward an important monetary aspect related to the costs incurred by glass manufacturing plants to comply with National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for inorganic arsenic emissions. Understanding these costs provides insight into the financial implications of environmental regulations on industries.
Financial Overview:
The document specifies that the total estimated cost for compliance is $470,000 per year. This financial allocation includes $79,400 for annualized capital or operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. These costs reflect the financial burden that glass manufacturing plants incur to ensure adherence to the emissions standards set forth by the EPA. The figures presented are aimed at providing a clear picture of the financial implications associated with compliance.
Relation to Identified Issues:
One of the prominent issues identified in the document is the lack of a detailed breakdown of how these costs are calculated, leading to potential ambiguity for those trying to understand the expense structure. Specifically, while the document provides a total annual cost figure, it does not elaborate on any specific items or activities that contribute to capital or O&M costs. For industry stakeholders, knowing how these costs are derived is crucial for accurate budgeting and financial planning.
Additionally, the document mentions that the O&M costs have been updated from 2008 to 2022 dollars using the CEPCI CE Index. However, this is noted without further explanation of what the index entails or how it influences cost calculations. This lack of explanation might be confusing to readers unfamiliar with technical financial indices and adjustment methods, further emphasizing the necessity for clarity in explaining cost derivations.
Furthermore, the document indicates that there is no change in burden from the most recently approved ICR. Still, the text does not offer a comprehensive explanation of the methodology used to determine this lack of change. For those tasked with financial oversight, understanding why burdens have remained stable, given inflation and potential regulatory changes, is essential for assessing the sustainability and fairness of the compliance costs.
In summary, the financial references in the document emphasize the overall costs imposed on glass manufacturing plants striving to comply with EPA standards. However, the lack of specificity and clarity in presenting how these costs are determined can lead to ambiguity. This underscores the need for the EPA to provide more detailed financial analyses and explanations to ensure transparency and facilitate industry compliance.
Issues
• The notice does not specify what specific information will be collected from glass manufacturing plants, potentially making it unclear to respondents.
• The document uses several acronyms such as NESHAP, ICR, OMB, and CEPCI without prior definition, which may confuse readers unfamiliar with these terms.
• The cost estimates are provided in financial terms, but no detailed breakdown is given for how these costs are calculated, potentially causing ambiguity in the understanding of the costs involved.
• No specific benefits or outcomes from the ICR renewal are mentioned, which makes it difficult to assess the value versus cost of the proposed activity.
• The method for determining there is no change in burden is mentioned but not explained in detail, which may be seen as lacking clarity.
• The document repeats some historical amendments information, such as the date of proposal and promulgation, that may not be directly relevant to the current review.