FR 2025-03339

The document submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pertains to the renewal of information collection under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for boat manufacturing. This request, largely administrative, seeks approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to continue collecting pertinent data from boat manufacturing facilities. These facilities, identified as major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), must adhere to EPA standards by submitting various reports and conducting necessary tests. Public involvement is encouraged through a comment period, which remains open until March 31, 2025.

The primary objective of this document is to ensure continued compliance with environmental standards aimed at reducing air pollution emanating from boat manufacturing activities. The standards focus on controlling emissions from operations involving resins, gel coats, and adhesives, among others. As such, stakeholders—including industry owners, environmental policymakers, and community members—may find these regulations crucial for maintaining air quality.

Several issues warrant consideration concerning this document. Firstly, despite its focus on a proposed extension approved through February 28, 2025, the document discusses actions and deadlines beyond this date. This could lead to confusion about the legitimacy and continuity of these requirements post-approval date. Furthermore, the document includes incomplete contact details for reaching Muntasir Ali, an EPA representative, potentially hindering effective communication between stakeholders and the agency. The use of complex terminologies, such as 'NESHAP' and 'HAP', without prior explanation, may also be a barrier to understanding for those less familiar with EPA regulations.

The document holds significance for the public as it underscores the role of regulatory oversight in safeguarding environmental quality. It emphasizes transparency and public participation through the comment submission process. While industry stakeholders may face an administrative burden, the document indicates a decrease in burden estimates compared to initial compliance periods. This suggests an improvement in regulatory efficiency over time, albeit with no detailed context or comparisons provided for a clearer understanding of resource use improvements.

For boat manufacturing facilities, maintaining adherence to these standards is obligatory. They must allocate resources for compliance activities, including operational adjustments and reporting obligations. While these efforts may incur costs, the regulatory framework embodies a broader public interest in minimizing hazardous emissions, contributing to environmental and public health benefits. Conversely, failing to provide a clear and user-friendly process for submitting comments or engaging with the OMB might deter some stakeholders from participating actively in the review process, limiting the stakeholder input essential for informed policy making.

In summary, while the document serves its purpose of promoting environmental compliance and public involvement, certain aspects—such as clarity in deadlines and accessible submission procedures—require enhancements to foster broader participation and understanding. Addressing these elements can further bolster the alignment between regulatory objectives and public and stakeholder interests.

The document under consideration primarily involves the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Information Collection Request (ICR) for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) specific to the boat manufacturing industry. The document outlines financial aspects related to the ICR, emphasizing both the total estimated burden in terms of hours and the expected financial cost.

Financial Summary

The total estimated cost associated with this ICR amounts to $1,620,000 per year. This figure is intended to cover the compliance costs for boat manufacturing facilities that are categorized as major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). These costs do not account for any annualized capital expenditures or operation and maintenance costs, indicating that the stated figure relates primarily to the administrative aspects of compliance and other ongoing regulatory obligations.

Financial Context and Implications

The provided financial allocation of $1,620,000 annually raises some pertinent issues regarding its sufficiency and efficiency in ensuring compliance with NESHAP standards. While the document highlights a decrease in the total estimated respondent burden and costs compared to a previous iteration of the ICR, it fails to present explicit context regarding these figures. There is no direct explanation within the document on how these adjustments in burden and cost reflect more effective use of resources or improved compliance measures. This lack of comparative data to prior periods can obscure stakeholders' ability to assess the efficiency or expected impacts of this financial allocation.

Additionally, the projected costs are described as covering the burden associated largely with ongoing compliance rather than initial startup compliance activities. This distinction is crucial for understanding the financial implications, as it suggests that the monetary needs are primarily focused on sustaining long-term adherence to the standards rather than onboarding new facilities or systems.

Considerations and Recommendations

The potential confusion stemming from inconsistencies in dates and procedural clarity could indirectly affect the financial implications of the ICR. For example, uncertain extension validity beyond February 28, 2025, might impact how facilities budget and plan for compliance costs if they are unsure about the continuity of these requirements. Moreover, unclear communication, such as incomplete email addresses for point-of-contact persons, might limit effective dialogue between the EPA and stakeholders, possibly leading to inefficiencies in compliance and unexpected costs.

In summary, while the $1,620,000 annual cost provides a broad estimate of the financial resources allocated for compliance, additional details and clarifications could enhance stakeholders' understanding of financial expectations and the efficiency of the regulatory process. A more comprehensive comparison with previous data could also offer valuable insights into how the financial trajectory of the ICR aligns with broader regulatory goals and cost-effectiveness.