Overview
Title
Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Utah; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Correction
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The EPA made a mistake earlier and said no one commented on a new air quality rule for Utah when actually someone did comment online. Because of COVID-19, they weren't accepting comments by mail, just online. Now, they've corrected this and will take the online comment into account.
Summary AI
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a correction to a previous rule regarding Utah's State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Initially, the EPA mistakenly stated that no comments were received during the public comment period. However, it turned out they had overlooked one electronically submitted comment. The EPA clarified that they had temporarily stopped accepting mailed comments because of COVID-19, but they maintained the requirement to consider public feedback through electronic means. This rule is now effective as of February 23, 2021.
Abstract
On June 1, 2020, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a rulemaking proposing to approve multiple elements of the infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS for the State of Utah, while taking no action on three infrastructure elements (85 FR 33052). On September 16, 2020, we published a rulemaking taking final action on the proposal. The final rulemaking incorrectly stated that there were no comments received during the public comment period for the proposed rulemaking (85 FR 57731). One comment, submitted electronically on July 1, 2020, had been received but was inadvertently overlooked in the preparation of the September 16 final rule. In this correction document we will respond to the comment received.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a correction to a previous rule concerning air quality plans in Utah. Initially, the EPA approved portions of Utah's plan for managing ozone pollution. However, they later realized that they missed a public comment submitted electronically before the decision was finalized. This commentary will explore the implications of this correction and its broader impacts.
General Summary
The document from the EPA amends a past statement regarding public comments on Utah's air quality plans. The agency had overlooked an electronically submitted comment before publishing its final rule in September 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the EPA had also ceased accepting comments by postal mail temporarily. Despite the oversight, the EPA asserted that their methods were within legal guidelines since they offered electronic options for public input.
Significant Issues and Concerns
A primary concern centers around the exclusion of postal mail comments. While this was justified as a public health measure during the pandemic, it raised questions about accessibility and fairness in public participation. The commenter believed this exclusion violated procedures, although the EPA disagreed, stating that electronic submissions fulfilled legal requirements. Nevertheless, this situation highlights potential gaps in how public input is handled, especially during emergencies.
Furthermore, the document's dense legal language and references to regulations and executive orders might challenge those without a legal or environmental policy background. People unfamiliar with these procedures may find the document difficult to interpret, potentially limiting public engagement and understanding.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this correction may seem like a minor technical adjustment. Still, it emphasizes the importance of public participation in creating and approving environmental regulations. The fact that the EPA acknowledged and corrected its oversight is positive, as it shows a commitment to public input and transparency.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For environmental advocacy groups and local communities, particularly in Utah, this correction serves as a reminder of the importance of monitoring how public comments are managed. It underscores the necessity for organizations and individuals to adapt to digital submission methods, especially during periods when traditional means are limited.
Regulatory bodies like the EPA face the challenge of balancing public health precautions with the need for transparent, inclusive rulemaking processes. Stakeholders involved in regulatory advocacy may need to push for clearer communication and more accessible submission methods to ensure that all voices can contribute meaningfully to environmental decision-making.
In summary, while the EPA's correction might appear to be a technical fix, it has broader implications for public engagement in policy-making. It highlights the need for clear communication and process adaptability, especially when standard procedures are adjusted, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Issues
• The document addresses comments on the proposed rulemaking and provides the EPA's response. However, it does not provide information on the nature and reception of the actual comment submitted by postal mail, which was claimed by the commenter but not found. This might indicate a potential process issue in handling comments that should be clarified.
• The method of excluding postal mail comments could be seen as potentially restrictive, though justified by the COVID-19 pandemic. This temporary method might need clearer communication to ensure transparency and public understanding.
• The language is quite technical and legalistic, which might be challenging for a layperson to understand without specialized knowledge in environmental policy or administrative law.
• The document refers to a complex set of regulations, statutes, and executive orders that can be difficult for someone unfamiliar with legal texts to interpret.
• The response to the comment uses legal and procedural justifications which are dense and might benefit from a simpler summary paragraph for broader public accessibility.