Public Workshop To Consider a Report Entitled ``Review of the
Process for Setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' and
Related Documents
[Federal Register: June 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 112)]
[Notices]
[Page 33747-33749]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12jn06-85]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-8182-7]
Public Workshop To Consider a Report Entitled ``Review of the
Process for Setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' and
Related Documents
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Announcement of public workshop.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing a public workshop to be held to elicit
public input and discussion on the process the Agency uses to conduct
periodic reviews of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), as
discussed in a recent report prepared by an Agency workgroup entitled
``Review of the Process for Setting National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.'' This workshop is not intended to cover issues related to
the ongoing review of any specific NAAQS.
Dated: The public workshop will be held the afternoon of June 27, 2006.
Please refer to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below for additional
information on the workshop.
ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at the following location: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T. W. Alexander Drive, Auditorium
C111A, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709.
Written comments on the NAAQS review process may also be submitted
to EPA electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/
courier. Written comments should be sent to Ms. Lydia Wegman, (C504-
02), U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, e-
mail at wegman.lydia@epa.gov; or Dr. Kevin Teichman, U.S. EPA, Office
of Research and Development, Office of Science Policy (8104R), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, e-mail at
teichman.kevin@epa.gov.
Relevant documents (including the workgroup report, ``Review of the
Process for Setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' prepared
by EPA's NAAQS Process Review Workgroup, March 2006, and the associated
Executive Summary, Attachments and Transmittal Memorandum) can be
obtained from EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you would like to speak at the
public workshop or have questions concerning the public workshop,
please contact Ms. Tricia Crabtree at the address given below under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION no later than June 20, 2006. Questions
concerning the ``Review of the Process for Setting National Ambient Air
Quality Standards'' report should be addressed to Mr. Robert Fegley,
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Office of Science Policy
(8104R), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone
number (202) 564-6786, e-mail at fegley.robert@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the workgroup report cited above, EPA
staff responded to a request from Deputy Administrator Marcus Peacock
to examine the process the Agency uses to
[[Page 33748]]
periodically review national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), as
required by the Clean Air Act. This review of the NAAQS process was
aimed at examining whether and, if so, how the process can be further
strengthened and at identifying ways of streamlining the process so
that EPA can achieve more timely NAAQS reviews. The recommendations in
the workgroup report were endorsed by Mr. William Wehrum (Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation) and Dr. George Gray
(Assistant Administrator for Research and Development) in a memorandum
transmitting the workgroup report and their additional recommendations
to Deputy Administrator Peacock on April 3, 2006.
With the support of the Deputy Administrator, EPA is seeking
additional input from the public and from the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee (CASAC), that provides advice to the Administrator
on NAAQS-related matters, on various components of these
recommendations, even as the Agency is now taking actions to begin
implementing a number of basic structural workgroup recommendations in
upcoming NAAQS review activities. The public workshop will provide
interested parties the opportunity to present their views concerning
issues related to the Agency's NAAQS review process, as well as to
engage in a dialogue with the Agency on such issues. To help inform and
focus public comment and discussion at the workshop, the Agency has
prepared background information and discussion questions that are
presented in an appendix to this notice.
Please note that this workshop is not intended to cover issues
related to any specific criteria air pollutant or NAAQS. Written
comments and supporting information submitted to the Agency by June 23,
2006 will be made available by the Agency to attendees at the workshop.
The public workshop will be held in Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. It will begin at 1 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time and continue
until 5 p.m. If you would like to give a presentation at the workshop,
please notify Ms. Tricia Crabtree, (C504-02), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
crabtree.tricia@epa.gov, (919) 541-5688, by June 20, 2006. She will
arrange a time slot for you to speak.
The time allotted for each oral presentation may be limited
depending on the number of individuals who wish to speak. By June 23,
2006, EPA will contact individuals who have requested an opportunity to
make a presentation at the workshop to inform them how much time they
will be allotted. All presenters will be allotted an equivalent amount
of time on the agenda. We will not be providing equipment for
presenters to show overhead slides or make computerized slide
presentations unless we receive special requests in advance. Presenters
should notify Ms. Tricia Crabtree if they will need specific equipment
no later than June 23, 2006. The EPA encourages presenters to provide
written versions of their comments either electronically on computer
disk or CD-ROM or in paper copy. The workshop agenda, including the
list of speakers, will be posted on EPA's Web page at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ prior to the workshop.
Finally, EPA will shortly announce a meeting of the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) on the afternoon of June 29,
2006, also in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. That public
meeting will also focus on the NAAQS review process.
Dated: June 6, 2006.
Mary E. Henigin,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Appendix 1: Background Information and Discussion Questions
The following background information and discussion questions
are organized around the recommended structure for the NAAQS review
process. That structure encompasses four activities: planning,
science assessment, risk/exposure assessment, and policy assessment/
rulemaking. Each of these sections is followed by a short set of
questions designed to facilitate the discussion at the public
workshop. As discussed below, the basic structural changes that the
Agency is starting to incorporate into NAAQS reviews include
combining separate planning activities into one integrated plan that
focuses on policy-relevant issues; restructuring the Air Quality
Criteria Document into a more concise science assessment document;
preparing more concise risk/exposure assessment documents with an
enhanced focus on characterizing uncertainties; and, to the extent
that these changes are implemented, replacing the Staff Paper as currently
structured with a more narrowly-focused policy assessment document.
NAAQS Review Plan: As recommended in the workgroup report, the
Agency plans to combine the current separate planning activities
into the preparation of one integrated planning document that
focuses the science, risk/exposure, and policy assessments on a set
of policy-relevant issues, reflecting significant uncertainties and
gaps in knowledge identified at the end of the last review. This
plan would include criteria for identifying key policy-relevant
studies and for assessing the weight of the evidence for important
scientific issues. This plan would also include a schedule for the
review that maximizes the amount of time allotted to the science and
risk/exposure assessments; that more closely links these assessments
through a more coordinated, consultative process; that minimizes the
time between the completion of these assessments and reaching
proposed decisions on the NAAQS; and that allows for provisional
assessment of ``new'' science, if necessary, during the rulemaking
process. The preparation of such an integrated, policy-relevant plan
would provide an opportunity for early involvement of EPA senior
management, CASAC and/or outside parties in framing policy-relevant issues.
? What key issues can and should be addressed in a NAAQS
review plan, recognizing that this plan will be developed at the
beginning of the review process?
? What are your views on the role of the public and CASAC
in providing input and/or review of such plans?
Science Assessment: As recommended in the workgroup report, the
Agency plans to restructure the Air Quality Criteria Document into a
science assessment document that is a more concise evaluation,
integration, and synthesis of the most policy-relevant science (with
comprehensive annexes that include more detailed descriptive
information), and to include key science judgments that are integral
to the risk/exposure assessments. This document should include a
presentation of the synthesis of policy-relevant science not only
for a scientific audience, but also in language that will be
understood and meaningful to policy makers, perhaps in the form of a
``plain-English'' executive summary.
? What types of scientific judgments are integral to
conducting risk/exposure assessments and to what extent do you think
those judgments are best made in the science assessment?
? What are your views on the projected timeline for
developing the risk/exposure assessment methodologies concurrent
with the preparation of the first draft science assessment, and for
conducting the first phase risk/exposure assessment (projecting
risk/exposure associated with recent air quality and with ``just
attaining'' the current standards) concurrent with the preparation
of the second draft science assessment?
The workgroup report recommended the development and
implementation of a continuous process to identify, compile,
characterize, and prioritize new scientific studies with the
assistance of state-of-the-art electronic databases. The Agency
recognizes that the development of such a system is complex and
potentially resource-intensive, and believes that additional time is
needed to explore various approaches, options, and resource
requirements for its development. Further, the Agency has concluded
that consideration of the extent to which such a system would
facilitate a survey of ``new'' science during the NAAQS rulemaking
and/or preparation of more frequent periodic updates should be done
in conjunction with efforts to develop such a system.
? What are your views on how best to provide for a more
continuous process of identifying, compiling, characterizing, and
prioritizing new scientific studies that does
[[Page 33749]]
not begin and end with the preparation of each science assessment
done as part of periodic NAAQS reviews?
? To what extent would it be practical and/or useful for
such a continuous process to have a multi-pollutant focus rather
than focusing on each pollutant separately?
? Can you suggest any examples that the Agency might
consider in designing and implementing such a process?
? When and how could assessment of ``new'' science
appropriately be performed and used during the NAAQS rulemaking process?
Risk/Exposure Assessment: As recommended in the workgroup
report, the Agency plans to develop a more concise risk/exposure
assessment document focused on key results, observations, and
uncertainties (similar to the risk/exposure chapter(s) that are now
included in Staff Papers). This document would be supported with
comprehensive annexes that include all relevant background
information, assumptions, results, and assessments of variability
and uncertainty to ensure the transparency of the assessment
(similar to the information now included in contractor technical
support documents currently reviewed by the CASAC and public). The
Agency plans to work with the Science Advisory Board Staff Office to
consider the formation of a CASAC subcommittee on risk/exposure
assessments, when appropriate, to provide more focused feedback and
advice on planning these assessments, including input on the
methodology used and the characterization of uncertainties.
? What are your views on CASAC's role in providing more
focused feedback and advice on the risk/exposure assessments?
Policy Assessment/Rulemaking: As recommended in the workgroup
report, the Agency plans to replace the Staff Paper as currently
structured with a more narrowly focused policy assessment document
to the extent that the changes discussed above are adopted and
effectively implemented. This document would be based on the
information contained in the science and risk/exposure assessments,
and would also include the results of policy-relevant air quality
analyses. This document would focus on identification of a set of
evidence- and risk-based approaches for reaching policy judgments;
consideration of the adequacy of the current standards and whether
alternative standards should be assessed for consideration; and
identification of a range of options for alternative standards (in
terms of indicators, averaging times, forms, and ranges of levels)
that might be considered by the Administrator in making policy choices.
? What steps can be taken to ensure that the roles
previously played by the Staff Paper are effectively addressed in the
science assessment, risk/exposure assessment, and the policy assessment?
? What are your views on whether and how your ability to
comment on the policy assessment would be affected by having an
opportunity to review just one draft of the policy assessment, as
envisioned in the recommended timeline?
In their transmittal memorandum, Mr. Wehrum and Dr. Gray have
additionally concluded that it is appropriate for the final policy
assessment to reflect the Agency's views, consistent with EPA
practice in other rulemakings. They also recommended that further
consideration be given to publishing the policy assessment through
an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) that solicits review
and comment from CASAC and the public. Comments received on an ANPR
would be taken into consideration in developing the proposal notice,
although unlike the process of preparing both a draft and final
assessment document that addresses such comments prior to the
preparation of a proposal notice, the use of an ANPR may eliminate
the preparation of a ``final'' policy assessment.
? To what extent, if at all, do you think that it would
affect your comments if the draft and/or final policy assessment
reflects Agency rather than staff views?
? To what extent, if at all, do you think it would affect
your opportunity to provide comments if the policy assessment were
to be published in conjunction with an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking rather than in the form of both a draft and final
assessment document?
Finally, the following questions concern more general issues
regarding the NAAQS review process:
? The generic NAAQS review timeline presented in the
workgroup report is intended to maximize the time allotted to
conducting the science and risk/exposure assessments within a 5-year
review cycle, and to reach proposed decisions as close in time to
the completion of the science and risk/exposure assessments as
possible. As a general matter, what are your views on these goals?
? To what extent do you feel that the relative amount of
time allotted to each activity in the generic timeline, and the
degree to which certain activities are projected to be done
concurrently, is appropriate?
? To what extent do you believe that the recommended
generic timeline provides adequate and appropriate opportunities for
CASAC and the public to participate in the NAAQS review process?
[FR Doc. E6-9043 Filed 6-9-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090514171835im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}