Frank Pallone: “On its face, Mr. Gosar's amendment seems innocuous enough, having EPA also consider the contribution of wildfires in the…”

“On its face, Mr. Gosar's amendment seems innocuous enough, having EPA also consider the contribution of wildfires in the bill's required study on ozone formation, wintertime ozone formation, and control strategies. But in reality, this study is a wolf in sheep's clothing. So adding further criteria, as this amendment would do, only makes it worse. First, many of the aspects of this proposed study are already covered by EPA's integrated science assessment. Integrated science assessments are reports that represent concise evaluations and synthesis of the most policy-relevant science for reviewing National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Essentially, these assessments form the scientific foundation for the review of the NAAQ Standards. All integrated science assessments are vetted through a rigorous peer-review process, including review by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and public comment periods. Furthermore, the EPA is already doing a comprehensive review of wildfires and ozone, so additional study of this issue is not necessary, in my opinion. But this study is more than a duplication of work already being done, Mr. Chairman. The bill would inject costs into this scientific review process by requiring the assessment of cost-effective control strategies to reduce ozone. While this is certainly worthy as an issue to review, EPA's scientific assessments are the wrong venue for such a discussion.…”