Public Workshop To Consider a Report Entitled “Review of the Process for Setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards” and Related Documents, 33747-33749 [E6-9043]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 112 / Monday, June 12, 2006 / Notices
SPP Regional State Committee—July
24, 2006 (1 p.m.–5 p.m. CDT). Embassy
Suites Hotel/Kansas City Plaza, 220
West 43rd Street, Kansas City, MO
64111. 816–756–1720.
The discussions may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:
Docket Nos. RT04–1 and ER04–48,
Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER05–109, Southwest Power
Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER05–652, Southwest Power
Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER05–799, Southwest Power
Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER05–1065, Entergy
Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER05–1285, Southwest
Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER05–1352, Southwest
Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER05–1416, Southwest
Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER06–15, Southwest Power
Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER06–432, Southwest Power
Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER06–448, Southwest Power
Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER06–451, Southwest Power
Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER06–641, Southwest Power
Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER06–727, Southwest Power
Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER06–729, Southwest Power
Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER06–767, Southwest Power
Pool, Inc.
The meeting is open to the public. For
more information, contact Tony Ingram,
Office of Energy Markets and Reliability,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
at (501) 614–4789 or
tony.ingram@ferc.gov.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6–9097 Filed 6–9–06; 8:45 am]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–ORD–2006–0384; FRL–8183–4]
Human Studies Review Board; Notice
of Public Meeting
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On June 6, 2006 (71 FR
32536), the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA or Agency)
Office of the Science Advisor (OSA)
announced a public meeting of the
Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) to
be held June 28–30, 2006 from 8:30 a.m.
to approximately 5 p.m., Eastern Time.
Please be advised that the Board will
also be meeting on June 27, 2006,
beginning at 1 p.m. to approximately 5
p.m., Eastern Time. For further
information contact Paul I. Lewis,
Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA,
Office of the Science Advisor, (8105),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564–8381; fax: (202) 564 2070; e-mail
addresses: lewis.paul@epa.gov.
Dated: June 6, 2006.
George Gray,
EPA Science Advisor.
[FR Doc. E6–9082 Filed 6–9–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Announcement of public
workshop.
AGENCY:
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket No. EC06–125–000]
dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
Public Workshop To Consider a Report
Entitled ‘‘Review of the Process for
Setting National Ambient Air Quality
Standards’’ and Related Documents
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
KeySpan Corporation; Errata
June 2, 2006.
On June 1, 2006, the Commission
issued a notice of filing in the abovereferenced proceeding. Combined
Notice of Filings #1, June 1, 2006. This
19:52 Jun 09, 2006
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6–9086 Filed 6–9–06; 8:45 am]
[FRL–8182–7]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Errata corrects the comment date of June
15, 2006 to read: ‘‘July 21, 2006’’.
Jkt 208001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33747
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 https://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.
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
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\12JNN1.SGM
12JNN1
dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
33748
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 112 / Monday, June 12, 2006 / Notices
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 NAAQSrelated 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:52 Jun 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 https://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
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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, policyrelevant 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
E:\FR\FM\12JNN1.SGM
12JNN1
dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 112 / Monday, June 12, 2006 / Notices
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:52 Jun 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–8182–8]
Public Water System Supervision
Program Revisions for the State of
Ohio
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of tentative approval.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the State of Ohio is revising its
approved Public Water System
Supervision Program. Ohio has revised
its definition of a Public Water System,
Consumer Confidence Report Rule,
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33749
Public Notification Rule, Interim
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule; and Stage 1 Disinfectants and
Disinfection Byproducts Rule.
EPA has determined that these
revisions by the State are no less
stringent than the corresponding
Federal regulations. Therefore, EPA
intends to approve these revisions to the
State of Ohio’s Public Water System
Supervision Program.
Any interested party may request a
public hearing. A request for a public
hearing must be submitted by July 12,
2006, to the Regional Administrator at
the EPA Region 5 address shown below.
The Regional Administrator may deny
frivolous or insubstantial requests for a
hearing. However, if a substantial
request for a public hearing is made by
July 12, 2006, EPA Region 5 will hold
a public hearing. If EPA Region 5 does
not receive a timely and appropriate
request for a hearing and the Regional
Administrator does not elect to hold a
hearing on his own motion, this
determination shall become final and
effective on July 12, 2006. Any request
for a public hearing shall include the
following information: The name,
address, and telephone number of the
individual, organization, or other entity
requesting a hearing; a brief statement of
the requesting person’s interest in the
Regional Administrator’s determination
and a brief statement of the information
that the requesting person intends to
submit at such hearing; and the
signature of the individual making the
request, or, if the request is made on
behalf of an organization or other entity,
the signature of a responsible official of
the organization or other entity.
All documents relating to
this determination are available for
inspection at the following offices: Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency,
Division of Drinking and Ground
Waters, 122 South Front Street,
Columbus, Ohio 43215, between the
hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Ground Water and Drinking
Water Branch (WG–15J), 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois
60604, between the hours of 9 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alicia Brown, EPA Region 5, Ground
Water and Drinking Water Branch, at
the address given above, by telephone at
(312) 886–4443, or at
brown.alicia@epa.gov.
Authority: Section 1413 of the Safe
Drinking Water Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
3006–2 (1996), and 40 CFR part 142 of the
E:\FR\FM\12JNN1.SGM
12JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 112 (Monday, June 12, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33747-33749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-9043]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 https://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 https://
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