Search

The article discusses the court ruling in Wisconsin v. Environmental Protection Agency, which held that the deadline for upwind states to stop any substantial interference must align with the deadline for downwind states' compliance to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Topics covered include the ruling's implications for air quality regulation, and the good neighbor provision of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

The article reports on the relationship that exists between the citizens and the elected officials in relation to a U.S. state government's accountability for its implementation of the environmental policy. Topics discussed include the impact of public opinion on the adoption of environmental policy at the state level, the state governor's degree of accountability when it comes to the issue of air quality regulations, and the analysis of data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate the relationship between localized environmental quality and gubernatorial approval.

The article discusses the National Ambient Air Quality Standards of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that outlines the acceptable air pollution threshold value for each of the six criteria pollutants. It mentions that the compliance with the ozone NAAQS is determined by the 3-yr average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-h average ozone.

The article discusses the roles of science and environmental policy in relation to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA's) efforts to set national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), and it mentions America's Clean Air Act and the EPA's attempted rerevision of NAAQS for photochemical oxidants (ozone). A risk-based standard for U.S. environmental laws is examined, along with U.S. administrative rulemaking and the ozone-related case Whitman v. American Trucking Assn’s.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA), is required to promulgate National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs) for criteria air pollutants, including ozone. Each NAAQS includes a primary health-based standard and a secondary or welfare-based standard. This paper considers only the science used for revision of the primary standard for ozone in 2008. This paper summarizes deliberations of a small group of scientists who met in June 2007 to review the scientific information informing the EPA Administrator’s proposed revision of the 1997 standard. The Panel recognized that there is no scientific methodology that, in the absence of judgment, can define the precise numerical level, related averaging time, and statistical form of the NAAQS. The selection of these elements of the NAAQS involves policy judgments that should be informed by scientific information and analyses. Thus, the Panel members did not feel it appropriate to offer either their individual or collective judgment on the specific numerical level of the NAAQS for ozone. The Panel deliberations focused on the scientific data available on the health effects of exposure to ambient concentrations of ozone, controlled ozone exposure studies with human volunteers, long-term epidemiological studies, time- series epidemiological studies, human panel studies, and toxicological investigations. The deliberations also dealt with the issue of background levels of ozone of nonanthropogenic origin and issues involved with conducting formal risk assessments of the health impacts of current and prospective levels of ambient ozone. The scientific issues that were central to the EPA Administrator’s 2008 revision of the NAAQS for ozone will undoubtedly also be critical to the next review of the ozone standard. That review should begin very soon if it is to be completed within the 5-year cycle specified in the CAA. It is hoped that this Report will stimulate discussion of these scientific issues, conduct of additional research, and conduct of new analyses that will provide an improved scientific basis for the policy judgment that will have to be made by a future EPA Administrator in considering potential revision of the ozone standard. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This section chronicles the history of the U.S. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The first particulate matter criteria document produced by the Public Health Service was released in 1969. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Community Health Environmental Surveillance Study report in 1974. From 1991 to 1993, the EPA and other organizations produced studies suggesting effects at levels below the standards, prompting decision to begin an accelerated criteria and NAAQS review. In 2002, the EPA promulgated a final response to a remand, reaffirming the 1997 primary and secondary standards.

The article discusses the highlights of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Manufacturers Performance Report on greenhouse gas. Topics discussed include the report's assessment of the progress of the automobile industry towards greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards compliance for cars and light trucks in the 2012 model year and an increase in the number of consumers who purchased cleaner vehicle in the first year of the program than required by the 2012 GHG.

The article focuses on the regulatory controversy heading toward Susan Dudley's inbox concerning the toxic legacy of lead pollution in the U.S. The controversy highlights on the cost versus benefits in the proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) scientific advisers to tighten the implementation of air-quality standard for lead, lowering the permissible level from 1.5 µg/m3 to 0.2 µg/m3. The standard of lowering lead amount is proposed to cope up with the lowered intelligence quotient (IQ) among children exposed with lead. Various methods to reduce lead content in the air were considered, depicting the initiative to eliminate contaminated soil from along the road or renovate old house

This article reports that activists are criticizing a proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to speed up its regular review of air-quality standards. By law, EPA must revisit its National Ambient Air Quality Standards every 5 years. Staff scientists evaluate the latest research and propose ranges for new standards, which are then reviewed by the agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. Because EPA regularly misses its deadline and gets sued, an internal EPA committee proposed several suggestions in for speeding up the process. EPA chief scientist George Gray said that the idea behind this proposal is not to have the policy drive the science.