FR C1-2020-28121

Overview

Title

Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Removal of Control of Emissions From Solvent Cleanup Operations

Agencies

ELI5 AI

The EPA noticed a tiny mistake in their paperwork about cleaning up certain air pollutants in Missouri, and they fixed it by changing a date from January 20 to January 21. This correction helps everyone know exactly when things are supposed to happen.

Summary AI

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made a correction to a proposed rule document related to emissions from solvent cleanup operations in Missouri. In the original document, which appeared on December 21, 2020, there was a date error. The DATES section on page 82995 incorrectly stated "January 20, 2021," which has been corrected to "January 21, 2021." This correction ensures that the intended timeline is accurately reflected.

Citation: 86 FR 2615
Document #: C1-2020-28121
Date:
Volume: 86
Pages: 2615-2615

AnalysisAI

In this document, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a correction to a proposed rule regarding the control of emissions from solvent cleanup operations in Missouri. The correction is a minor yet important adjustment to the timeline specified in the earlier announcement. Originally, the document stated that the relevant date was January 20, 2021. This has been corrected to January 21, 2021, ensuring that the document accurately reflects the EPA's intended schedule.

General Summary

The text informs readers about a correction to a previously published proposed rule by the EPA. The primary focus is on the change of a single date, which is crucial to maintaining clarity and correctness in regulatory procedures. This correction was published in the Federal Register, which is the official journal of the federal government, covering rules, proposed rules, and notices from federal agencies.

Significant Issues or Concerns

One notable issue is the lack of an abstract in the document metadata. An abstract would provide a concise summary of the proposed rule, which is helpful for readers to quickly understand the document's intent. Additionally, the "action" field in the metadata is null, meaning there is no detailed description of the specific action being proposed. These omissions can lead to confusion or misinformation regarding the broader implications of the rule.

Moreover, the text merely addresses the correction of a date without offering additional context around why the change was necessary or what implications, if any, it might have. This leaves readers with questions about the original rule and the significance of the date change.

Public Impact

At first glance, the document may seem inconsequential to the general public, as it concerns a minor date correction. However, accurate dates are vital in regulatory processes to ensure transparency and compliance. For the general public, this means relying on the government's accuracy in administrative timelines, which, in turn, promotes trust in regulatory practices.

Stakeholder Impact

For stakeholders, particularly those in the solvent cleanup operation businesses in Missouri, the corrected date may impact their compliance schedule. Companies and organizations involved in these operations need to be aware of and adhere to the regulatory timelines set by the EPA to avoid potential penalties or non-compliance issues.

Without additional context or information about the original rule, it's challenging to definitively assess the broader impacts of this correction on environmental or health outcomes, industry operations, or economic considerations. However, stakeholders vested in environmental regulation compliance would be keen to align their operations with the revised timeline as accurately stated by the EPA.

Issues

  • • The document metadata lacks an abstract, which would help provide a concise summary of the proposed rule.

  • • The 'action' field in the document metadata is null, which could provide more context on the specific action being proposed.

  • • The text only addresses a minor correction to the date in the existing proposed rule without offering additional context on the implications or reasons for the change.

  • • There is no detailed information on the potential impacts or significance of the proposed rule change in the text.

  • • The document does not discuss any potential costs, benefits, or impact on stakeholders, which limits the ability to evaluate wastefulness or favoritism.

Statistics

Size

Pages: 1
Words: 96
Sentences: 3
Entities: 13

Language

Nouns: 20
Verbs: 6
Adjectives: 2
Adverbs: 0
Numbers: 20

Complexity

Average Token Length:
3.93
Average Sentence Length:
32.00
Token Entropy:
3.94
Readability (ARI):
15.57

Reading Time

less than a minute