[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 112 (Monday, June 12, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33747-33749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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 [email protected]; 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 
[email protected].
    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 [email protected].

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, 
[email protected], (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