FR 2021-03034

The document in question is a final rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning the approval of Washington State's State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions. The SIP submissions are designed to meet air quality infrastructure requirements for standards set in 2010 for sulfur dioxide and 2015 for ozone. These plans are essential as they ensure that each state has the framework in place to maintain and enforce environmental standards that protect air quality.

The EPA's approval signifies that Washington's plans satisfy certain elements required by the Clean Air Act. It highlights the state's preparedness to manage air pollution through adequate personnel, funding, and legal authority to implement its SIP. The rule, set to be effective from March 22, 2021, indicates that the EPA has evaluated Washington’s resources and structural components thoroughly, confirming compliance with the required standards.

Significant Issues and Concerns

One of the primary issues addressed in the document was the public comment period during which an "anonymous commenter" raised concerns about Washington's resources and funding adequacy. The commenter suggested that an audit of Washington's finances was necessary for transparency and validation of the state's ability to implement its SIP. However, the EPA rebutted this, explaining that its role is to verify that plans meet federal requirements, not to assess financial details through audits. This could raise general concerns about the oversight of state resources and whether the EPA's evaluation is comprehensive enough to account for financial sufficiency.

An unusual administrative error occurred during the initial public comment period where a key technical document was omitted from the docket. While this was later corrected, such oversights can lead to transparency issues, questioning the administrative diligence involved in the process.

Furthermore, concerns related to the impact of COVID-19 on the ability of Washington to implement its SIP have been noted. The EPA's response was speculative about future impacts, which might be seen as insufficient given the dynamic nature of the pandemic's effects on operational and financial resources.

Another concern could arise from the fact that the SIP does not apply to certain Indian reservation lands. This raises questions about the boundaries of jurisdiction and the level of environmental protection maintained in these areas.

Impact on the Public

From the public’s perspective, this document reflects the ongoing efforts to maintain air quality standards that are crucial for environmental and public health. It assures the citizens of Washington that there are plans in place to manage and minimize air pollution effectively. However, the initial lack of key documents in the public docket might have reduced public trust and participation.

Impact on Stakeholders

For specific stakeholders like the Washington Department of Ecology and local clean air agencies, this approval means they are equipped and recognized as capable of handling air quality standards. The EPA's assurance provides them with the necessary legal backing to continue their operations. However, they may still face scrutiny regarding resource adequacy, especially under unforeseen circumstances like a pandemic.

The EPA, as a federal agency, demonstrates its regulatory role by ensuring state compliance with federal standards. While it supports states in achieving clean air goals, the agency also needs to manage public perception and maintain confidence through transparency and meticulous administrative practices.

In summary, while the document represents progress in air quality management for Washington, it also highlights the need for ongoing diligence and careful consideration of resources, transparency, and potential jurisdictional issues.

In the Federal Register document, the operating budget of the Washington Department of Ecology is highlighted as a key financial reference. The budget for the 2019-2021 period amounts to $43.7 million. This allocation is crucial for performing air program functions necessary under the State Implementation Plan (SIP) mandates. Breaking down this budget, $10.1 million comes from federal funds, while the remainder is sourced from state funds, permits, and fee programs.

The reference to the Washington Department of Ecology's budget is directly tied to discussions around resource adequacy. One of the key issues raised by an anonymous commenter is whether the state has adequate funding and resources to implement the SIP effectively. The commenter suggests that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should perform an audit of Washington's finances and accounting practices. They express concerns that without such audits, it might be challenging to ensure that funds are being used appropriately to carry out SIP functions.

The EPA counters this concern by indicating that there is no mandatory requirement for them to audit state finances as part of the SIP approval process. Instead, they rely on assurances from the state, supported by the budget overview and performance metrics related to federal grant programs. The $43.7 million budget, in this context, serves as evidence that Washington has the means to implement the SIP requirements.

However, this financial reference does not fully mitigate all concerns. The document notes that while there may be sufficient funding presently, speculative impacts from unforeseen circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic could potentially challenge resource allocation. The EPA acknowledges that the pandemic might influence Washington's revenue and SIP implementation capability but considers these impacts speculative at the time of review.

Other areas of concern connected to the budget allocation include transparency and administrative processes. Initially, a technical support document was omitted from the public docket, prompting questions about how effectively financial and technical support details are shared with the public. This omission required corrective actions and could raise issues about how financial resources are being monitored and reported.

In summary, the Washington Department of Ecology's financial allocations provide necessary assurances for SIP implementation, though the discussion around their sufficiency, transparency, and potential vulnerability to unexpected events remains active.