Technical Public Comments

  1. Frey, H.C., J.M. Samet, A.V. Diez Roux, G. Allen, E.L. Avol, J. Brain, D.P. Chock, D.A. Grantz, J.R. Harkema, D.J. Jacob, D.M. Kenski, S.R. Kleeberger, F.J. Miller, H.S. Neufeld, A.G. Russell, H.H. Suh, J.S. Ultman, P.B. Woodbury, and R. Wyzga, “CASAC Advice on the EPA’s Integrated Review Plan for the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (External Review Draft),” 24 page letter with 42 pages of attachments, submitted to Chair, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and to Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0279, November 26, 2018.
  2. Frey, H.C., “Public Comment on the CASAC Review of EPA’s Integrated Review Plan for Ozone (External Review Draft – October 2018),” Presented orally on November 29, 2018, Meeting of the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, via teleconference.
  3. Frey, H.C., A.V. Diez Roux, J. Balmes, J.C. Chow, D.W. Dockery, J.R. Harkema, J. Kaufman, D.M. Kenski, M. Kleinman, R.L. Poirot, J.A. Sarnat, E.A. Sheppard, B. Turpin, and S. Vedal, “CASAC Review of EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Particulate Matter (External Review Draft – October 2018),” 34 page letter and 100 pages of attachments submitted to Chair, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and to Docket EPA–HQ–ORD–2014-0859, December 10, 2018.
  4. Frey, H.C., “Public Comment on the CASAC Review of EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (External Review Draft – October 2018),” Presented orally on December 12, 2018, Meeting of the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, Crystal City, VA.
  5. Frey, H.C. “Clarifying Oral Comment,” to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Crystal City, VA, December 13, 2019.
  6. Frey, H.C., “Procedural Irregularities,” Public Comment to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, February 27, 2019.
  7. Frey, H.C., “Public Comment: NSPS for GHG Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed EGUs,” Submitted to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, March 13, 2019.
  8. Hecht, S., N. Ashford, H.C. Frey, M.G. Morgan, E.S. Rubin, and M. Taylor, Comment Letter from Technological Innovation Experts Opposing EPA’s Proposal to Weaken Emissions Standards for New Coal-Fired Power Plants, Submitted to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, March, 2019,
  9. Frey, H.C., “Public Comment: Deficiencies of Procedure and Expertise Must Be Corrected,” Written Comment to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee,” Submitted to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, March 26, 2018.
  10. Frey, H.C., A.V. Diez Roux, P. Adams, G. Allen, J. Balmes, J.C. Chow, D.W. Dockery, J.R. Harkema, J. Kaufman, D.M. Kenski, M. Kleinman, R. McConnell, R.L. Poirot, J.A. Sarnat, E.A. Sheppard, B. Turpin, and S. Vedal, “03-07-19 Draft CASAC Review of EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Particulate Matter (External Review Draft – October 2018),” 19 page letter submitted to Chair, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Washington, DC, March 27, 2019.
  11. Frey, H.C., “Public Comment: Reinstate the CASAC PM Review Panel,” Written Transcript of Oral Comment Presented to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, March 28, 2018.
  12. Frey, H.C., “EPA Has a Statutory Responsibility to Use Properly Developed and Reviewed Science,” Written Statement to the Science Advisory Board, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, June 5, 2019. Also presented as an oral statement.
  13. Frey, H.C., P. Adams, J.L. Adgate, G. Allen, J. Balmes, K. Boyle, J.C. Chow, D.W. Dockery, H. Felton, T. Gordon, J.R. Harkema, J. Kaufman, P. Kinney, M. Kleinman, R. McConnell, R.L. Poirot, J.A. Sarnat, E.A. Sheppard, B. Turpin, and R. Wyzga, “Advice from the Independent Particulate Matter Review Panel (formerly EPA CASAC Particulate Matter Review Panel) on EPA’s Policy Assessment for the Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (External Review Draft – September 2019),” 11 page letter and 192 pages of attachments submitted to Hon. Andrew Wheeler, Administrator, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0072, and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, October 22, 2019.
  14. Frey, H.C., “Advice from the Independent Particulate Matter Review Panel (formerly the EPA CASAC Particulate Matter Review Panel) on EPA’s Policy Assessment for the Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (External Review Draft – September 2019),” Written Statement to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, October 22, 2019.
  15. Frey, H.C., A.V. Diez Roux, G. Allen, E.L. Avol, J. Brain, D.P. Chock, D.A. Grantz, J.R. Harkema, D.J. Jacob, D.M. Kenski, S.R. Kleeberger, F.J. Miller, H.S. Neufeld, A.G. Russell, J.S. Ultman, K.C. Weathers, P.B. Woodbury, and R. Wyzga, Advice from the former U.S. EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Ozone Review Panel on EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (External Review Draft – September 2019), and EPA’s Policy Assessment for the Review of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (External Review Draft – October 2019), Letter to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler from members of the former Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Ozone Review Panel (2009-2015), December 2, 2019.
  16. Frey, H.C., The NAAQS PM Science Review Process is Broken and Not Credible: EPA Should Start Over, Oral and Written Statement to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, December 3, 2019.
  17. Frey, H.C., The NAAQS Review Process for Ozone Should be Suspended Until Process Deficiencies are Corrected, Oral and Written Statement to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, December 4, 2019. 3 pages.
  18. Frey, H.C., Review of the Draft Policy Assessment for Ozone Must Be Properly Conditioned and Unbiased, Consistent with the Decision Context Set Forth by Congress, Oral and Written Statement to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, December 5, 2019, 3 pages.
  19. Frey, H.C., The NAAQS Ozone Science Review Process is Broken and Not Credible: EPA Should Start Over, Written Statement to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, December 5, 2019, 37 pages.
  20. Frey, H.C., CASAC Should Acknowledge that the Scientific Review of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards is Undermined by Ad Hoc Changes to the Review Process, Written Statement to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, February 10, 2020, 24 pages.
  21. Frey, H.C., EPA’s Proposal to Regulate Science Should be Withdrawn: The Proposal is Not Required by Statute and Contradictory to Well-Established Scientific Best Practices, Written Statement to Docket EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, May 18, 2020, 23 pages.
  22. Frey, H.C., Advice from the Independent Particulate Matter Review Panel (formerly the EPA CASAC Particulate Matter Review Panel) On Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, Written Statement to Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0072, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, May 20, 2020, 5 pages.
  23. Frey, H.C. EPA Should Withdraw its Proposed Rule: Increasing Consistency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process, Written Statement to Docket  EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-00044, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, July 1, 2020, 9 pages plus attached references.
  24. Frey, H.C. EPA Should Withdraw its Proposed Rule: Increasing Consistency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process, Written Statement to Docket  EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-00044, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, July 17, 2020, 1 page plus attached reference.
  25. Frey, H.C., The NAAQS PM Science Review Process and Outcome is Broken and Not Credible: EPA Should Follow the Science and the Law to Set Health Protective Annual and 24-Hour PM2.5 Standards, Written Statement to Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0072, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, June 29, 2020, 73 pages plus attachments of cited references:  Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6.
  26. Frey, H.C., Review of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Written Statement to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0279, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, August 31, 2020, 5 pages plus attached cited references
  27. Frey, H.C., The Scientific Review of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards is Undermined by Ad Hoc Changes to the Review Process, Written Statement to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0279, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, October 1, 2020, 36 pages, plus attachments of selected cited references.
  28. Frey, H.C., Impacts of Ad Hoc Changes to the Science Review Process for U.S. Air Quality Standards, Written statement to the Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, November 16, 2020, delivered November 17, 2020 via an EO 12866 meeting.