UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
THE ADMINISTRATOR
May 15.2006
The Head Librarian
EPA's Headquarter Library
Room 3340 EPA West Building
MC: 3404T
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Librarian:
Enclosed arc two copies of the 2005 reports of the U.S. National Advisory
Committee (NAC) and the U.S. Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). This
notification is provided to you in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA) Section 13.
NAC Advice letters:
• Advice letter: May 20, 2005
• Advice letter: November 16, 2005
GAC Advice letters:
• Advice letter: May 19,2005
• Advice letter: November 22,2005
Sincerely,
Oscar Carrillo
Designated Federal Officer
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/CanoJa Ink on papar thai
contalna at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
)un-09-ZOJ5 10:40 From-PENN STATE DICKINSON SCHOOL OF LAW
T-B81 P 002/010 F-60B
PENNSTATE
The Dickinson
School of Lajw
John H. Knox
Pioic»oi or' Law
"Ilic Diikiiuun School of LJW
The Pcnn%ylvania Suit University
ISO South College Sircci
e. PA 17013-2899
•717-341-3504
fu. 717-340-5126
H-Tnail: jllknjn@inu.cdi)
May 20,2005
The Honorable Stephen L. Johnsou
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenu4 N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Acting Administrate!! Johnson:
ory Committee (NAC) to the U.S. Representative to the North
Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) held its twenty-fourth meeting on
in Washington, D.C.
The National Advis
American
April 27,28, and 29,2005,
We were briefed ocj some aspects of the CEC's work by Jerry Clifford, Sylvia Correa, and
Robert Wing from the EP/ Office of International Affairs, Bill Sonntag from the EPA-OfFice of
Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, and Darci Vetter from the Office of the U S. Trade
Representative. We would like to thank Daiva Balkus, Mark Joyce, Oscar Carrillo, Nancy
Bradley, and Geraldine BK wn from the EPA Office of Cooperative Environmental Management
for organizing and staffing the meeting. We very much appreciated the participation of BUI
Kennedy and Doug Wright from the CEC Secretariat and Dinkenai Desai from the Joint Public
Advisory Committee. We vould also like to thank Paul Cough, the Director of the Office of
International Environmentafl Policy, for his letter of February 2,2005 responding to our advice
letter of November 4,2004
We spent most of oiirtime and attention on a Business Roundtable on Environmental
Capacity. We also considei ed three other topics more briefly: the report of the Ten-Year Review
and Assessment Committed; the CEC reporting process; and EPA attention to CEC matters.
Advice on each is attached,
On all of these rnattfcrs, we hope our advice is useful to EPA and other government
officials as they prepare for the CEC Council meeting in Canada next month. If your schedule
permits, we would welcom? the opportunity to meet with you there, as we have done with your
predecessors.
The Dickiiison School of Law u[tlbe Peonsylvanh State University
An Equal Opportunity Univ«nJlY
-------
Jun-09-2005 10:40 Fron-PENN STATE DICKINSON SCHOOL OF LAH + T-B81 P 003/010 F-608
Finally, we note that several of our terms are nearing expiration. We encourage EPA to
have new members or renewals of current members of the committee (as appropriate) in place by
the time of our next meeting, in October.
Very truly yours,
John H. Knox
Chair, National Advisory Committee
cc: Judith Ayres, Assistant Administrator for International Affairs
Jerry Clifford, DepUty Assistant Administrator for International Affairs
Stephen Mahfood, Chair, U.S. Governmental Advisory Committee
Arturo Duran, Chailr, Joint Public Advisory Committee
Jean Perras, Chair,
Canadian National Advisory Committee
Members of the U.$. National Advisory Committee:
Dennis Aigiter. Aldo Morell
Michael Andrews Anne Perrault
Adam Greeie Robert Shinn Jr.
Richard Gu^mond Wilma Subra
Cesar Luna Dolores Wesson
-------
Jun-39-ZOOS 10:40 FroirPENN STATE DICKINSON SCHOOL OF LAW
T-8B1 P 004/010 F-60B
National Advisory Committee
to the U.S. Representative to the
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
Advice 2005-1 (May 20,2005):
Facilitating Priyate Sector Contributions to Capacity-Building in Mexico
On Wednesday, Ajpril 27, the NAG nnd GAG hosted a Business Roundtable on
Environmental Capacity, at which the committees heard from a large number of multinational
companies (including Abb 3tt Labs, Kodak, DuPont, Motorola, Colgate-Palmolive, 3M, and
Holcim), non-govemmenti J organizations (including the U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce,
the World Environment Ci nter, the U.S. Mexico Foundation for Science, Delphi, and the Global
Environmental Managerae u Initiative), and governmental entities (including the Mexican
Regulatory Development; Agency, U.S. AID, the World Bank, and the Organization of American
States).
The chief messages
of effort is already takm
protect and improve the
multinational firms
can best help to encourage
that the NAC took from the Roundtable are that an enormous amount
ig i lace to build the capacity of-fhe Mexican private and public sectors to
environment, and that much of this effort is being led by larger
operati ng in Mexico. The question is how the U.S. government and the CEC
and facilitate these efforts.
We do not have thi
CEC should create a high-!
involved in these efforts
We believe that the focus
large multinationals. Al
impact on the Mexican en'
pull up the standards of s:
final answer to that question. Instead, we believe that EPA and the
:1 forum, or a series of forums, through which those directly
come together to discuss how to encourage this "race to the top."
If those forums should be, at least at first, on the supply chain for the
lugh improving regulatory capacity is necessary, a greater short-term
Miment could come from larger companies using their influence to
iller ones with which they do business.
sponsore^ forums could, for example, develop good principles for suppliers.
elop a recognition or certificate for such suppliers, which would
r and help them to get business from the multinational companies.
also provide opportunities for those directly involved and for the CEC to
to be a catalyst in inventorying and disseminating information about
f cjapacity-building. In this process, it is crucial for the CEC to include
multinationals, but also Mexican companies. Moreover, the CEC
advantage of the [many business groups that arc already working in this area, such as
Environmental 1 Management Initiative (GEMI), as well as Mexican business
Con amin, Canacintra, Caintra, and Aniq.
The CEC-
Perhaps the CEC could de>
reward responsible behavic
The conferences could
find other ways for the CE
best-practice examples o
nor only U.S. (and Canadiab)
must take
the Global
organizations, such as
We do not believe
before the Council session,
describing. Understandabl;
conducive to detailed
that i
the JPAC meeting on capacity-building scheduled for June, just
is a good opportunity for the kind of "brains terming forums we are
, JPAC public meetings at Council sessions are not often focused or
discussions on a single topic. Instead, we believe that the Council should
-------
Jun-flfl-ZQOS 10:40 From-PEHK STATE DICKINSON SCHOOL OF LAW
T-8BI P 005/010 F-E08
i sessic n
announce at its June
understand that the CEC i
and the three national busi
Council session.
that the CEC will convene a series of such meetings. We
« utiative to reinvigorare the Memorandum of Understanding between ii
less organizations will result in a formal signing of the MOU at the
That would be an ideal opportunity to announce this new plan.
Finally, we note, a-j we have many times before, that the CEC is quite limited in what it
can do with its scarce resources. Helping to catalyze and spread existing efforts further down the
supply chain provides an ii ivaluablc opportunity for the CEC to leverage its scarce resources in a •
way lhat could have potentially immense benefits in Mexico.
Recommendations^
fi is crucial that EPA follow up with the participants in the Roundtable. As an initial
step, EPA should provide tack of die participants, as well as officials at CEC, EPA, and other
governmental agencies, the agenda of the Roundtable and the presentations made there. The
agenda and presentations^hould be made available on disc and/or on-line, as well as in hard
copy.
The U.S. government should work immediately with the other Parties and the
Secretariat to convene hig it-level meetings with business representatives along the lines
described above. The ann mncement of this initiative should be made at the June 2005
Council session, in connection with the signature of the MOU with the three national business
associations.
-------
Jun-08-2Q05 10:40 Frcn-PENN STATE DICKINSON SCHOOL OF LAW
T-H1 P 006/010 F-608
National Advisory Committee
to the U.S. Representative to the
Cofmnission for Environmental Cooperation
Advice 2005-2 (May 20,2005):
Report ojf the Ten-Year Review and Assessment Committee
In 2004, the U.S. g
avernment and the NAG spent a great deal of time considering, and
commenting on the draft n port prepared by the Ten-Year Review and Assessment Committee
(TRAC). The TRAC issuf d its final report in June 2004. After providing a detailed assessment
of the state of the CEC, thi
subsidiary recommendario
come to different conclusi
report gives fourteen general recommendations, some of which have
is within them. While individual members of the NAC might have
„ .„ ras on some issues, on the whole we believe that the TRAC report is a
very valuable review of thi CEC, and that all of its recommendations should be adopted without
delay.
*f time and effort that went into the report, we were surprised to hear
j that EPA had not decided whether to adopt each of the
not even contemplating any procedure to decide whether to adopt the
thijik this makes no sense. The end-product of the lengthy, expensive,
not be publication of the report. Rather, the repon should be
iravement of the CEC. For this to happen, the U.S. government (and
other governments) had to spend time reviewing the recommendations, deciding whether it
with th^m, explaining why it rejects those with which it disagrees, and then
it accepts.
Given the amount
from an EPA official at tt
recommendations and was
recommendations. We
detailed ten-year review shjould
used to facilitate actual inn
the
agrees or disagrees
working to implement tho
The final recommendation
assistance and JPAC's adv ce
including those which have
the reasons, to the 2006 an u
the view that this recomme idation
adopt must be made by 20( 6
the 2006 repon should be qn
many of the recommendati
immediately on whether an)i
Council session would be
of the TRAC is that "the Council^ with the executive director's
ce, repon publicly on the implementation of these recommendations,
been folly or partially implemented and those which have not, widi
ual meeting of the Council." The U.S. government should not take
means only that the decision as to which recommendations to
On the contrary, the TRAC recommends (and we fully agree) that
the implementation of the recommendations. In order to have as
>ns as possible fully implemented by 2006, the Panics must decide
how to implement each of the recommendations. The June 2005
sin ideal opportunity for them to do so.
Recommendation: By the 2005 Council session, the U.S. government should publicly
commit to adopting the TAACrecommendations and work with the other Parties and the
Secretariat to implement ti ose that have not yet been implemented. If the U.S. government
decides to reject any of the
explain its reasons pubtici
recommendations (which the NAC does not support), it should
-------
•Jun-09-Z005 10:41 From-PENN STATE DICKINSON SCHOOL OF LAW
T-8B1 P 007/010 F-60B
National Advisory Committee
to the U.S. Representative to the
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
Advice 2pOS-3 (May 20,2005): The CEC Reporting Process
Reporting is one o;
that "the CEC strengthen i
environment, and actively
information on key enviroi
the key importance of repi
Making."
the CEC's most important functions. The TRAC report recommends
role in producing objective reporting on the North American
>rk 10 become the acknowledged North American center for
:m and sustainable development issues." The Council recognized
[ing by naming one of the Puebla pillars "Information for Decision-
The NAC believes
At its meeting, it reviewed
recently provided on
comments went far beyond
comments seemed designe 1
negative to the United
government had the
report should state that it c
hat this core function is in serious danger of becoming dysfunctional.
with U.S. government officials comments that the U.S. government
rt prepared Cor the CEC by independent academic experts. The
those to be expected as part of a peer-review process. Many of the
to ensure that nothing in the report could be construed in any way
The comments seemed to contemplate both That the U.S.
author ty to withhold its approval of (or "clear") the report and that ihe
d not represent the views of the U.S. government.
Star s,
The government officials did not attempt to defend all of the comments. Instead, they
ved that these over-intrusive comments resulted from two other
ear understanding (within and, perhaps, outside the U.S. government)
C reports, and in particular, which reports were prepared
some sort of government imprimatur; and (b) a lack of
r even knowledge, of the decision by the Secretariat to request or
the second factor, we are aware that the Secretariat believes that, at
govern nental officials were involved in the decision to request an outside
ther officials within their own government of the decision. We take
is morelat fault here. Instead, we emphasize that it is the responsibility of
both the Party and the Seer itariat 10 work together to ensure that the right officials within a
government are being inforpaed in a timely manner of matters within their purview.
told the NAC that they beli
problems: (a) the lack of c
of the different types of CElC
independently and which it iplied
government pre-approval,
prepare certain reports
least in some cases,
report but failed to inform
no position on who i
The NAC believes \jery strongly that these problems must be resolved immediately or the
core reporting function of tie CEC will become seriously damaged. To put the matter bluntly,
independent experts, whose participation in the preparation of reports is necessary for the CEC to
'•strengthen its role in prodi cing objective reporting," will not be willing to prepare reports for
the CEC under these condit ons. We therefore make the following recommendations with
respect to the issues of labeling, authorization, government review, and peer review.
Recommendation oh Labeling: The U.S. government should work with the other
Parties and the Secretariate ensure that the nature of each CEC report is clear. In general,
reports should be classified as either (a) prepared by outside experts for the CEC; (b)
-------
Juri-09-2005 10:41 From-PENN STATE DICKINSON SCHOOL OF LAW
T-8B1 P 008/010 F-608
independently prepared by the CEC Secretariat (such as Article 13 reports and Article 15
factual records); or (c) prepared by the CEC Secretariat in accordance with instructions from
the Council (such as Article 12 annual reports). Other or more specific labels may also be
appropriate. Reports should be labeled and described in ways that make their classification
clear, and should be treated by reviewers accordingly. Moreover, authors of the reports
should understand in advance which type of report they have been asked to prepare.
Recommendation pn Authorization: The U.S. government should work with the other
Parties and the Secretariat to ensure that the appropriate officials within each Party are
properly informed of all requests for reports within their purview and, for matters within the
scope of the work program for which their authorization is required, that the authorization of
the appropriate officials if obtained before reports are requested or prepared by the
Secretariat.
Recommendation bn Government Review: With respect to draft reports prepared for
the CEC by independent experts and reports independently prepared by the CEC Secretariat,
the U.S, government should refrain from making comments other than those that are
appropriate for peer-revie
make comments designed
with them as a policy mafi
clearance from the V.S. g
wed documents. In particular, the U.S. government should not
to avoid observations or recommendations because they are
potentially embarrassing t o the United States or because the U.S. government does not agree
er. In addition, VS. government reviewers should clearly
understand, and should n ake clear in their comments, that such reports do not require
wernment or the other Parties,
Recommendation i/i Peer Review: The CEC should develop and adopt as soon as
practicable a set of peer reyiew guidelines akin to those followed by the IAS. National
Academy of Sciences and indorsed by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget for use by
federal agencies in its bulletin of December 16,2004 entitled "Final Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review. *
-------
Jin-n-»05 10:41 Fron-PENN STATE DICKINSWt SCHOOL OF LA* + T-BBI P 009/010 F-60S
National Advisory Committee
to the U.S. Representative to the
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
Advice 2005-4 (May 20,2005): EPA Attention to CEC Matters
The National Advisory Committee is very concerned about the apparent lack of attention
EPA is providing to CEC matters, in two respecis: (1) lack of coordinated attention to ihe CEC
generally; and (2) lack of Attention to the most recent meeting of the National and Governmental
Advisory Committees.
1. Insufficient coordinated attention to the CEC.
The NAC is concerned that EPA is paying insufficient attention to the CEC generally.
Only two months away from the annual Council meeting, and from the U.S. representative's
taking the chair of the Council for the next year, the U.S. government seems to lack an integrated
approach to the CEC. In particular, the three "pillars" outlined hi the Puebla Declaration, are
being addressed separately wthin the U.S. government, in ways that seem to lack coordination
and interconnectivity.
For example, only the trade/environment representatives could point to criteria that they
were using to assess potential projects. Criteria for the other pillars, which had been in the
process of development together, seemed to have fallen behind, and apart from, the
trade/environment criteria. Another example is the new Security and Prosperity Partnership of
North America, announced by President Bush, President Fox, and Prime Minister Marvin in
March of this year. EPA olGcials informed us that this initiative will apparently not affect their
plans for the CEC, or vice versa. But we do not see how this initiative, the "Prosperity"
component of which seemsito focus largely on trade and which includes a working group on the
environment, cannot have spine effect on, or be affected by, the regional organization the three
parties designed to address trade-and-environment issues. We are concerned that the chief reason
that the Partnership is being, considered separately from the CEC may be simply that the lead
agencies are different.
Our impression isttjatthe lack of apparent coordination of the U.S. approach to the CEC
may to some degree be the Result of insufficient staff. Adequate staffing should be available
within OIA to ensure that these functions are well supported. More fundamentally, attention to
CEC issues requires integration with other EPA offices and federal agencies. OIA should treat
this as a systemic issue that {needs a systemic response. The Puebla pillars should not be regarded
as silos, and the CEC as a whole should not be addressed in isolation from related initiatives such
as the Security and Prosperity Partnership.
We recognize that the U.S. government is trying to reorient the entire CEC program, and
we have supported those efforts. Taking die chair of the CEC Council gives it an enormous
opportunity to further its agenda. But to do that successfully, the various components of the U.S.
government must be working together. If staffing is a pobtem, we strongly encourage EPA to
-------
Jjft-39-2005 10:42 From-PENN STATE DICKINSON SCHOOL OF LAN
T-8BI P 010/010 F-608
find creative ways to enlis
expressed an interest in m wng
NAG is concemed thai EP A
coordinate the other federal
t additional staff for these issues in the short to medium terra. EPA has
quickly once it lakes over the chair of the CEC Council. The
appears to have a great deal of work to do to organize itself and
agencies if it is 10 have any chance of achieving its ambitious agenda.
Recommendation.] Using the Office of International Affairs, EPA should make greater
efforts to integrate its approach to the CEC internally and with other U.S. agencies, in the very
short term, to take advantage of its approaching year as chair.
2. Lack of attention to the NAC/GAC meeting.
Adviiory Committee was extremely disappointed by the attention EPA
paid to the h AC/GAC meeting. The lack of attention had two aspects. First, the
doc intents to review in advance of the meeting, either in draft or final
source of this problem was not a failure on the part of the Office of
Cooperative Environmental Management to pass these documents to us, but rather a failure on
of Inl srnational Affairs to provide them. We want to remind EPA that our
ti nely advice is dependent on its providing us information about which
would be useful.
The National
policy offices
NAC was provided no
form. We believe that the
the part of the Office
ability to provide useful,
topics and issues our advic:
time that MAC members can remember, no one from the Office of
en present during most of the NAC discussion. This absence was
surprising, and frustrating during the Wednesday roundtable. In response to
representatives on the NAC spenv a great deal of time
, including using their personal contacts to persuade high-ranking
of companies dbing business in Mexico to attend. They discovered only on the day of
fro n OlA would be present for any part of the presentations and
Executive Director and Director of Programs of the CEC Secretariat
pnvats -sector i
Second, for the firs
International Affairs was e1
particularly evident,
a request from OlA,
preparing for the roundtabl
executives
the meeting that no one
discussion. (In contrast, th
were present for the entire
This failure indicates a disregard for what was said at the meeting and a lack of respect
for those who took the time to prepare for and to attend the meeting. As a result, it will be
difficult or impossible to cqnvince those participants to contribute their time and attention for
another such meeting.
The NAC wants to <
Environmental Managemer c
directed against OCEM officials
Jear that it appreciates the effort made by the Office of Cooperative
to prepare for and to staff the meeting. The above criticisms are not
Recommendation:
commitment to the NAC aifrf CAC,
before the meetings and sending
The EPA Office of International Activities should renew its
*-"^'C, including through providing information and documents
adequate representation to the meetings themselves.
------- |