FR 2025-03340

The document under review is a notice from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding its proposal to extend data collection related to air quality compliance for facilities involved in the surface coating of metal cans. This proposal has been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the EPA is inviting the public to comment on it by March 31, 2025. The aim is to ensure that these facilities meet the stringent National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).

General Summary

In essence, the EPA needs approval to collect data from facilities that coat metal cans, which will enable it to confirm compliance with air pollution standards. This process is part of a broader regulatory framework that requires periodic extensions to maintain relevance and efficacy. The proposed extension allows for continued monitoring and enforcement of standards related to hazardous emissions from these facilities.

Significant Issues or Concerns

One key issue with the document is its technical complexity. It references specific parts of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which could be inaccessible to an average reader without legal or bureaucratic expertise. The text might benefit from simplification or a glossary of terms to aid comprehension.

Additionally, the document mentions a decrease in the estimated burden of compliance but does not clearly explain the reasons, which may lead to confusion or misinterpretation. Another concern is the opaque explanation of financial implications. The estimated cost of $282,000 per year lacks a detailed breakdown, leaving room for questions about resource allocation and efficiency.

Impact on the Public

Broadly, the document indicates a regulatory practice that could affect facility operations, consumer prices, and environmental health. By ensuring that metal can manufacturers adhere to air quality standards, the EPA aims to reduce harmful emissions. This could lead to positive public health outcomes, yet it might also contribute to increased operational costs for facilities, potentially affecting product pricing and availability.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For manufacturers, the proposed extension represents an ongoing administrative and financial burden. The necessity for compliance can drive up operational costs due to required adjustments and reporting duties. However, these costs are arguably balanced by the benefits of reduced hazardous emissions—a positive outcome for the environment and public health.

Conversely, for local communities and environmental advocates, the document underscores important oversight in air pollution control. Ensuring that manufacturers comply with NESHAP can directly benefit community health by reducing exposure to hazardous air pollutants.

In summary, while the document reinforces crucial regulatory practices, its complexity and lack of transparency in certain areas could hinder public engagement and understanding. By providing more clarity and simplifying the language, the EPA could facilitate better-informed public participation in the comment process.

The document outlines a submission by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) concerning the extension of an information collection request for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) related to the surface coating of metal cans. Financially, the document specifies a "total estimated cost" of $282,000 per year, which includes $15,400 in annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.

Summary of Financial References

The document states that the total estimated cost of $282,000 per year is associated with compliance requirements for facilities involved in the surface coating of metal cans. This amount comprises both routine costs and capital or operational and maintenance (O&M) expenditures, with $15,400 explicitly allocated to these capital or O&M costs.

Analysis of Financial Allocations and Related Issues

1. Explanation of Costs: While the document provides a total estimated cost and breakdown for capital and O&M expenses, it lacks a detailed explanation of how these figures are derived. The absence of a cost breakdown makes it challenging to assess whether the financial allocation is efficient or potentially wasteful. For instance, understanding the specific activities or resources covered under the capital or O&M costs could clarify their necessity and appropriateness.

2. Decrease in Burden: The document notes a decrease of 54 hours in the total estimated respondent burden. However, there is no financial context provided about how this decreased time might translate into cost savings or adjustments in the overall budget. Understanding the financial implications of this decreased burden could shed light on efficiency or cost-effectiveness improvements.

3. Complex Language and Public Understanding: The technical and dense language used in the document might hamper public comprehension, particularly of financial obligations and implications. Simplifying how cost estimates are presented and clearly articulating their components could enhance public understanding and engagement during the comment period.

In summary, while the document mentions an estimated annual financial burden associated with the extension of the ICR, it lacks a detailed breakdown of these costs and their rationale. Providing a clearer financial analysis could aid stakeholders in understanding the necessity and implications of the proposed expenditures.