[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 191 (Friday, October 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 59759]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25016]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-2679-000]

Latigo Wind Park, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Latigo Wind Park, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 15, 2015.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 25, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-25016 Filed 10-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


EPA has delegated primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for public water system supervision programs to 49 states, five territories, and the Navajo Nation. EPA has established a work group to help advise evaluation of the drinking water learning priority area questions. The work group includes EPA regional representatives and state drinking water program staff. EPA will work closely with individual states on specific aspects of the evaluations through the ASDWA (which includes in its membership territories and the Navajo Nation).
At key points in plan development, study design and implementation, and product drafting, EPA will consult with associations that represent public water systems, Tribal coordinators, technical assistance providers, and drinking water NGOs. EPA will continue to seek and include perspectives for communities with environmental justice concerns as it evaluates the priority questions. EPA is engaging academia to assist with identifying relevant existing study results and to design and conduct studies.
Priority Questions
 To what extent does EPA have ready access to data to measure drinking water compliance reliably and accurately?
 What factors determine system noncompliance and continuous compliance?
 How can we determine if a system has the technical, managerial, and financial capacity to provide safe water on a continuous basis to its customers?
 Does increased use of compliance assurance tools (inspections and enforcement) improve system compliance, and if so, under what circumstances?
 What EPA oversight activities are effective at assessing and improving state programs' ability to drive compliance?
Strategy for Addressing the Priority Questions and Accomplishments to Date
 To what extent does EPA have ready access to data to measure drinking water compliance reliably and accurately and to make policy decisions?
   EPA is carrying out the following activities to answer this priority question:
          Gathering existing Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Inspector General (IG) reports, data verification audits, annual program file reviews, and published studies that analyze data quality of the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) and creating a table that summarizes findings.
          Developing a method for assessing SDWIS data quality impact on compliance rate calculations (for instance rule-by-rule compliance rates as well as national, overall compliance rate) and use for policy decisions.
 Reviewing other programs' use of compliance monitoring data to inform this analysis.
          Seeking compliance monitoring data that exist in state databases to use for SDWIS data quality checks and for trend analysis in the evaluations described in Questions 2 through 4.
          Using statistical techniques to identify anomalies in sampling data.
          Reviewing data accuracy through a statistical lens with the goal of quantifying the uncertainty of calculated rates.
 What factors determine system noncompliance and continuous compliance?
   EPA is engaging in the following activities to answer this priority question:
          Identifying, gathering, and merging existing analyses of SDWIS data.
          Working with academics to identify data analysis tools (e.g., machine learning algorithms) to identify the most strongly correlated system factors to noncompliance and continuous compliance. Analyses will also be done on a rule-by-rule basis to learn from any trends in specific rule provisions.
          Conducting literature searches to identify data sets that describe system characteristics/factors (e.g., system size, resource base, source water contamination, as well as technical, managerial, and financial capabilities) that are believed to correlate to performance. Previous analyses indicate the majority of systems in chronic non-compliance are in communities with environmental justice concerns.
          Prioritizing system characteristics that correlate strongly with performance for additional study to determine causative associations. Studies will be designed based on the information gleaned from the analysis. Study designs may vary based on the types of correlative factors identified and what is already known about the factors and how much data exists for them. Studies could involve use of "big data" analytical tools, randomized control trials, retrospective analyses, or other study types.
 Does increased use of compliance assurance tools (inspections and enforcement) improve system compliance, and if so, under what circumstances?
   EPA is engaging in the following activities to answer this priority question:
          Gathering and synthesizing past and ongoing analyses.
          Conducting analyses of available information in SDWIS and the Enforcement and Compliance History Online that describe trends related to use of inspection and enforcement, which will help identify factors to include in randomized control trials (RCTs).
          Working with academics to determine interest in and approaches to further analyze historical data and design studies to answer questions about use of enforcement and inspections in the drinking water program.
          Using existing literature summaries and conducting additional literature searches on the efficacy of using compliance monitoring inspections and enforcement to ensure compliance.
 How can we determine if a system has the technical, managerial, and financial capacity to provide safe water on a continuous basis to its customers?
   To answer this priority question, EPA will identify minimum core technical, managerial, and financial capabilities required for systems to maintain compliance based on empirical evidence gathering and use those minimum core capabilities to develop measures that will help to identify systems vulnerable to failure. The evaluation for priority question two will inform this evaluation's design and activities, as will other sources such as relevant published literature and data sets that exist outside of EPA and state drinking water agencies. It is particularly critical that primacy agencies, Tribal leaders, water sector associations, and technical assistance providers actively engage in this process.
 What EPA oversight activities are effective at assessing and improving state programs' ability to drive compliance?
   To answer this priority question, EPA will develop an evidence-based methodology to identify the most effective oversight approaches that ensure state programs' ability to improve compliance in drinking water systems. The evaluation for this question will also be informed by the evaluations of the other questions.
Anticipated Agency-Specific Challenges and Proposed Solutions:
 Only a small portion of drinking water compliance data is housed in EPA's SDWIS database. States have compliance data, but some are reluctant to share them with EPA. Some states make the data open to the public through Drinking Water Watch. EPA will begin working early with states and invite them as collaborators on the Drinking Water Learning Agenda. EPA will also use the publicly available data as a starting point.
 A potential major challenge may occur if the data sets states are willing to give to EPA or that already are public are not similar to the data from states that do not share publicly (i.e., sampling bias). For example, states that are willing to voluntarily share their data with EPA or the public compared with states that are not as transparent may have higher compliance rates and/or implement their programs differently.
 The drinking water program under the Safe Drinking Water Act is delegated to authorized states, thus state participation in RCTs will be critical. EPA will need to recruit states willing to participate. Controlling for variations among state approaches and among drinking water systems will present a significant challenge. Upfront work will be done to ensure study designs and appropriate statistical methods are used to account for the variations and can produce statistically significant results.
 EPA regions will be asked to use inspection and enforcement tools in new ways. As these two tools are used so infrequently now, without piloting changes in the use of these tools, EPA will likely have trouble learning under what circumstances such tools are effective. Working through the National Compliance Initiative for Drinking Water Compliance, EPA will attempt to get regional buy-in for the RCTs.
 EPA will have to overcome definitional problems in which a simple notice of violation (NOV) and a formal enforcement action with a binding compliance schedule are lumped together as enforcement actions, when in fact they are very different. While the use of NOVs is common, EPA suspects the use of formal enforcement actions is much less common and these two different tools will need to be distinguished to advance learning on when formal enforcement works.
 State participation in the RCTs is critical to the success of this effort, since the primacy agencies implement and enforce the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, and the sample sizes would be increased. Working with additional organizations necessarily adds complexity. EPA will use lessons learned from other studies that have included states.
 While EPA has had success collaborating with academic researchers without providing the researchers with funding, EPA will spend time finding university researchers who are both interested in this work and can engage in it without EPA funding. This somewhat limits the pool of academics.
Learning Priority Area: Workforce Planning
Workforce planning is critical for all large organizations and EPA is at an important juncture to shape the workforce of the future. Currently, 25 percent of EPA's workforce is retirement eligible, increasing to an estimated 42 percent over the next five years. EPA's decentralized workforce planning approach and urgent programmatic needs often result in a "one-for-one" replacement of staff, with insufficient consideration of new skills and disciplines that might be needed. In addition, forward-thinking approaches often are hampered by the constraints and complexity of federal hiring practices and position classifications. For example, to successfully transition its workforce, EPA needs to better understand what skills are needed across all disciplines for a future that will certainly be more reliant on adept use of data. EPA also needs to acknowledge the wealth of institutional knowledge developed over the past 50 years. Knowledge management is the holistic process of creating, sharing, using, and maintaining the key knowledge and information of an organization. It creates organizational efficiencies by capturing information and best practices for the workforce of the future.
EPA identified this area as an enterprise risk due to the high number of staff eligible for retirement and EPA's aging workforce. The Agency completed several initiatives to better understand its workforce needs and to capture and close skills gaps. The completion of these activities will assist EPA in developing an evidence-based plan and roadmap for how EPA can ensure it has diverse employees with the competencies needed to achieve its mission now and in the future. It will also help determine the overall processes used to cultivate and manage the workforce, while anticipating internal and external changes, and continuously maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness of the Agency's human resource services.
EPA will take a two-phased approach to this learning priority area, with an ongoing goal of imbedding all learning into the Agency's tactical approaches to workforce.
   In the near term, EPA will focus on:
          Determining current capabilities for assessing workforce status and needs;
          Defining the future skills and disciplines that will strengthen and modernize the workforce; and
          Planning for and beginning data collection for EPA's longer-term efforts, described below.
   In the longer term, EPA will focus on:
          Identifying best strategies to retain and attract employees and develop skills to meet the Agency's future mission-critical needs; and
          Developing leading practices for maintaining expertise by transferring knowledge from current subject matter experts (SMEs) to existing and new employees.
To identify the actions needed to address the priority questions, EPA consulted with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), external organizations, and academicians focused on the future of the federal workforce. Of specific interest is determining how government can attract and retain individuals with needed skills in environmental science.
This learning priority area covers all program areas and as such supports all strategic goals and is aligned with Cross-Agency Strategy 3: Advance EPA's Organizational Excellence and Workforce Equity.
Priority Questions
    To what extent does EPA have access to the tools and strategies needed to analyze and understand the Agency's near and long-term workforce needs?
    What are the critical skills needed to support the Agency's mission, now and in the future?
    What are the leading strategies to attract, recruit, train, and retain a diverse and talented workforce? What makes people stay in the Agency long-term?
    How can EPA ensure knowledge is transferred from outgoing to current and incoming staff to support succession planning?
Stakeholder Engagement
EPA understands that its success in answering the above priority questions will to a great degree depend on the support and buy-in received from key stakeholder groups. Thus, the Agency has begun briefing a range of internal stakeholders, including senior leaders, members of the Human Resources Officer/Program Management Officer (HRO/PMO) community, and Shared Services Centers (SSCs) staff, and key employee groups. Information provided by Agency HROs/PMOs is being used to revise existing and future workforce planning tools. Quarterly updates to senior leaders are building greater understanding of the scope and anticipated benefits to answering the workforce priority questions. Interviews with human capital contacts at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Small Business Administration (SBA), and Department of State are aiding EPA in fine-tuning its methodology for several actions. In FY 2021, the Agency also partnered with OPM's Strategic Foresight Team to hold a special training workshop for its HROs/PMOs and Office of Human Resources' (OHR) Management Team. Moving forward, additional stakeholder groups such as EPA's Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Tiger Team; Emerging Leaders Network; First Line Supervisors Advisory Group; Executive Management Council; Human Resources Council; and members of the external human resources academic and practitioner community will be integrated into the preparation, delivery, and evaluation of workforce priority items.
Strategy for Addressing the Priority Questions and Accomplishments to Date
 To what extent does EPA have access to the tools and strategies needed to analyze and understand the Agency's near and long-term workforce needs?
   While gathering data from various internal and external stakeholders, EPA will engage in the following activities to answer this priority question:
          Assess: 1) overall effectiveness of EPA's existing workforce planning tools (Workforce Demographics Dashboard, Diversity Dashboard, Succession Management Guide, and Workforce Plan), 2) consistent use of the tools, 3) alignment of the tools with stakeholder needs, and 4) effectiveness of EPA's communication of and training for these tools; and
          Ensure appropriate features and measures of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility are incorporated into EPA's workforce planning tools and strategies.
   During FY 2021, significant progress was made on this priority question, including: designing the template for a workforce planning/succession management dashboard specifically aligned with each stage of the workforce planning process, developing training materials on workforce planning and succession management processes for our HRO/PMO community, and securing an annual membership with the American Productivity and Quality Center to facilitate researching leading practices and Key Performance Indicators for workforce planning/succession management.
 What are the critical skills needed to support the Agency's mission, now and in the future?
   EPA has begun and will continue to engage in the following activities to answer this priority question:
          Establish Mission Critical Skills needed across the Agency to ensure the demands of EPA and its various constituents are met by maintaining both the correct positions and employees with sufficient proficiencies both now and in the future;
          Enhance the Talent Enterprise Diagnostic (TED) tool  --  EPA's competency assessment tool  --  and conduct Agencywide skills gap analyses;
          Administer competency assessments using a revised version of the methodological and well-documented approach employed to complete the assessments already conducted;
          Analyze results of all relevant competency and skills assessments, including those conducted via TED, the National Training Needs Assessment, and through other Evidence Act priorities; and
          Evaluate competency assessment data to identify disparities along gender, racial, and targeted disability categories and, if found, research and recommend leading practices to eliminate such gaps.
   EPA has already started addressing several of the actions under this priority question by holding a special strategic foresight training workshop for its HROs/PMOs and Office of Human Resources' Management Team, beginning the enhancement of our competency assessment tool to provide more robust features in preparation for conducting large-scale skills assessments, and revamping the Agency's National Training Needs Assessment to better address stakeholder and Agency needs.
 What are the leading strategies to attract, recruit, train, and retain a diverse workforce? What makes people stay in the Agency long-term?
   EPA will engage in the following activities to answer this priority question:
          Analyze internal and external recruitment strategies;
          Enhance employee engagement strategies;
          Develop an employee career progression model;
          Conduct an attrition cause analysis; and
          Track and evaluate trend data of key indices within the annual Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey.
   When analyzing the results of the above five actions, EPA will determine if disparities exist along categories of employee diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. If found, the Agency will research and recommend leading practices to eliminate such disparities.
   In FY 2021, EPA started addressing several of the actions under this priority question by participating in OPM training to identify root causes of Mission Critical Occupation attrition, preparing to refill the Agency's Employee Engagement Officer role, and designing the template for an Agencywide dashboard capturing trends in the Employee Engagement Index and Global Satisfaction Index of the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey.
 How can EPA ensure knowledge is transferred from outgoing to current and incoming staff to support succession planning?
   EPA has begun and will continue to engage in the following activities to answer this priority question:
 Perform a literature review for knowledge management and knowledge transfer to identify best practices;
 Perform market research to identify relevant leading tools and resources; and
 Assess EPA's current strategies for knowledge transfer to identify best practices, paying close attention to leading practices for individuals with different abilities.
   To accomplish the action items for this priority question, EPA deployed a knowledge transfer pilot for two organizations, gathered initial information on leading practices for knowledge management within both private industry and a government setting, and registered two OHR employees for the training required to obtain a certificate in knowledge management.
Anticipated Agency-Specific Challenges and Proposed Solutions:
 There might be low participation among stakeholders in the evaluation and analysis of EPA workforce planning tools and communication plan, including lower than expected completion rates for interviews, surveys, and focus groups. This possible challenge will be mitigated by enlisting the buy-in and support of senior leaders, the Human Resources Council, and other key stakeholders to help promote the process prior to its start and by keeping in constant contact with those stakeholders during the evaluation and analysis process.
 Once TED is enhanced and EPA begins conducting skills assessments needed for workforce planning and succession management, there might be low completion rates across the Agency and/or in certain organizational components. This possible challenge will be mitigated by enlisting the buy-in and support of senior leaders, EPA's Human Resources Council, and other key stakeholders to help promote the process prior to its start and by keeping in constant contact with those stakeholders during the evaluation and analysis process. In addition, numerous training sessions will be conducted and recorded, and TED's User Guide and website will be refreshed.
Learning Priority Area: Grant Commitments Met
Every year, EPA awards over $4 billion in grants and other assistance agreements. Through these grants, EPA helps to protect human health and the environment through the work of small non-profits, academic institutions, Tribes, states, and local communities. 96 percent of these grants are awarded to state, local, and Tribal governments to implement environmental programs.
EPA's grant policies require each award be tied to the Agency's Strategic Plan and that the environmental results associated with grant actions be clearly established. Responsibilities for the management and tracking of the individual awards are dispersed among approximately 1,400 staff throughout headquarters and EPA's ten regional offices. The Agency's lack of a comprehensive system for tracking grant-related activities leads to an inability to proficiently evaluate environmental outcomes on a national scale.
Work to date has contributed to an improved understanding of reporting and tracking processes across the Agency's current grant programs. This baseline will help EPA develop a sustainable and consistent process for negotiating and tracking the environmental outputs and outcomes resulting from EPA's grant funding.
Over the last two years, the Office of the Administrator has engaged program and regional offices to better understand the Agency's grants management processes, including reporting mechanisms and frequency. The Agency found that due to variability in programmatic goals and metrics, the management of EPA's grants and cooperative agreements is highly variable. While some regions and programs employ a coordinated process to negotiate and track grant commitments, others rely on Project Officers. In addition, the Agency's current centralized grants management system is not configured to collect and track grantee progress on discrete commitments. EPA's work under this learning priority area will further Agency efforts to effectively report on the outcomes of taxpayer dollars and to make informed resource decisions.
This learning priority area covers all program areas, and thus supports all strategic goals and aligns with Cross-Agency Strategy 4: Strengthen Tribal, State, and Local Partnerships and Enhance Engagement.
Stakeholder Engagement
As this learning priority area moves into its second year, internal and external stakeholder engagement will be very important. The effort to date was internally focused on understanding EPA grant program practices and tools. The focus on best practices will involve essential engagement with both internal and external stakeholder groups, including the following:
 State media associations (e.g., Environmental Council of States, Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, Association of Clean Water Administrators, National Association of Clean Air Agencies, Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials);
    EPA programs that administer grant programs;
    EPA regions that implement grant programs; and
    EPA's Office of Grants and Debarment.
Priority Questions
    How do EPA's existing grant award and reporting systems identify and track grant commitments?
    What EPA practices and tools effectively track whether grantees are fulfilling their workplan grant commitments, including outputs and environmental outcomes?
    Are the commitments established in EPA's grant agreements achieving the intended environmental results?
Strategy for Addressing the Priority Questions and Accomplishments to Date
 How do EPA's existing grant award and reporting systems identify and track grant commitments?
   To answer this priority question, EPA surveyed active EPA grant programs to determine the universe of existing grant reporting and tracking systems. EPA is reviewing the completeness of the data and will follow up with programs and regions, as appropriate, to collect any remaining survey data. EPA is using quantitative and qualitative methods to analyze the data. EPA will review survey data to identify where equity and climate change impacts are identified as priority outcomes of grant programs. EPA will use this information to better understand what factors might affect a grant program's ability to effectively track grant commitments related to equity and climate impacts and to help inform actions taken pursuant to the Agency's equity assessment under E.O. 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government; and pursuant to climate change initiatives under E.O. 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.
 What EPA practices and tools effectively track whether grantees are fulfilling their workplan grant commitments, including outputs and environmental outcomes?

   EPA will engage in the following activities to answer this priority question:
          Compare the current state of grants management to an ideal future state, considering the programmatic and statutory requirements unique to each grant program, and available tools for programmatic monitoring.
          Identify opportunities for improvement to Agency grant program monitoring and tools to demonstrate environmental results more effectively on a national scale and to determine the extent to which these environmental results benefit underserved communities.
 Are the commitments established in EPA's grant agreements achieving the intended environmental results?
   EPA will engage in the following activities to answer this priority question:
          Select a subset of Agency grant programs to review for environmental outcomes or other priority strategic programmatic outcomes.
          Provide recommendations, as appropriate, for the selected Agency grant programs to better communicate how grant outputs advance the Agency's mission through environmental results, including achieving outcomes related to equity and climate change impacts.
          Identify what potential changes could be made to grant programs' data collection efforts to help EPA determine equity and climate change impacts.
          Outline next steps in establishing an EPA system that compiles the outputs and outcomes of Agency grant reporting.
Anticipated Agency-Specific Challenges and Proposed Solutions:
 Through approximately 1,400 project officers, EPA administers approximately 105 grant programs, each defined by its own set of laws, regulations, and policies that can change annually, in conformance with the Agency's priorities. Currently, there are on the order of 6,000 active grants across the Agency, each with an unknown number of specific commitments. EPA will be thoughtful in assessing what data are needed to answer each question and determining what data currently exist and what need to be collected to fill gaps. EPA will determine in advance how it will analyze the data to answer the questions and will collect data in a way that supports those analyses.
 The Agency plans to pilot a data collection tool with a subset of regions to ensure that it is a reliable instrument and that the data collected fulfills the anticipated need. EPA will refine the tool as needed before expanding its use to the complete universe of programs. EPA will involve internal stakeholders in the analyses to ensure the accuracy and utility of findings.
 EPA anticipates there will be a wide range of practices for monitoring grantee performance, but due to the lack of clear metrics and/or a clear directive to track individual grant activities, the data collection process may reveal data gaps. EPA also understands that a one-size-fits-all approach for grants management may not be appropriate across the Agency's grant programs. EPA will ensure both the national program and regional grant managers are closely involved in the criteria development for what constitutes a "successful" model for assessing grantee performance.
Learning Priority Area: Air Pollution Benefits
This learning priority area is under development.
                           Draft Capacity Assessment
The draft of EPA's Capacity Assessment report is below. In the December 2021 Final Draft FY 2022-2026 EPA Strategic Plan and in the final Plan issued in February 2022, the Agency will include a high-level summary of the EPA Capacity Assessment report with hyperlinks to the more detailed Capacity Assessment report posted separately. This approach will support updates of the Capacity Assessment, including summaries of actionable results and progress in implementing the Evidence Act.

Progress Overview
Introduction
The Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act (Evidence Act) requires Chief Financial Officer Act agencies to conduct a Capacity Assessment to appraise their ability and infrastructure to carry out evidence-building activities. EPA's approach to the Capacity Assessment can be broadly described in two phases:
 The initial assessment focuses on EPA's ability to answer the questions in the Agency Learning Agenda: Can we answer the questions posed by the Learning Agenda priority areas?
 The final assessment describes EPA's skills, capability, and capacity based on a maturity model: Do we have the skills, organizational structure, resources, expertise, and infrastructure to meet Agency Learning Agenda goals, as well as to implement the Evidence Act across the Agency?
Preliminary Results from the Initial Assessment
EPA's approach to the Capacity Assessment consists of two phases: an initial assessment and a maturity model-based assessment. The initial assessment examines whether the Agency has the skills and resources to answer the priority questions in the Learning Agenda.
The Agency conducted a survey to examine whether EPA has access to the skills and resources to answer the priority questions in its area. The survey respondents included members of EPA workgroups coordinating actions to address each learning priority area, starting with the three initial learning priority areas: workforce planning, drinking water systems out of compliance, and grant commitments met.
      Preliminary Take-Aways
      All three priority area workgroups expressed concern about data availability, data access, and available funding beyond FY 2022. Other observations include:
             Workforce Planning  -  in the short-term, the workgroup has sufficient data, expertise, and funding for two of the four priority questions. The workgroup is unsure about data, expertise, and funding for the other two questions.
             Drinking Water Systems Out of Compliance  -  The workgroup will require both internal staff resources and access to external experts (contractors and academics) with expertise in evaluation design and implementation. While they believe they have access to external experts, they do not believe they currently have internal staff resources with these skills available for the project.
             Grant Commitments Met  -  The workgroup is confident in its ability to answer only one of the three priority questions. For the other two priority questions, data availability, data quality, and the availability of funding to support the work were identified as the most significant possible challenges.
These findings are preliminary and subject to change pending further exploration via focus groups with workgroup members.
Development of the Maturity Model Approach for the Final Assessment
The final assessment will be Agencywide and based on a maturity model approach. The assessment will examine EPA's skills, organizational structure, resources, expertise, and infrastructure to answer Agency Learning Agenda priority questions, as well as to implement the Evidence Act across the Agency.
EPA's draft maturity model addresses five domains: Evaluation, Data Use, Research, Statistics, and Lean Management. For each domain, the draft maturity model considers dimensions such as coverage, quality, methods, independence, and effectiveness. The final maturity model will be included in a report published in February 2022.
Background
EPA's Current Context
The Evidence Act provides a framework to promote a culture of evaluation and continuous learning to ensure agencies' decisions are made using the best available evidence. The Evidence Act asks agencies to assess their capacity to implement this framework including coverage, quality, methods, consistency, effectiveness, and independence. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) implementation guidance asks agencies to "plan how they will assess the coverage, quality, methods, effectiveness, and independence of their statistics, evaluation, research, and analysis efforts... [to] provide a comprehensive view of agency capacity, while also ensuring that the review takes into account specific needs identified through the development of the agency's learning agenda." This report outlines EPA's plan and includes preliminary results.
EPA's ability to pursue its mission to protect human health and the environment depends upon the availability and quality of data and evidence that support and inform environmental policies, decisions, guidance, and regulations. As a science-based organization, EPA is committed to developing and using evidence to achieve its mission. Evidence-building activities are governed by a myriad of EPA and governmentwide policies, standards, and guidance to promote the quality, reliability, and accuracy of the information EPA develops and/or uses to inform policy and decision-making. These include (but are not limited to) EPA's Peer Review Policy and Handbook for internal and external review of scientific products, EPA's Information Quality Guidelines, EPA's Policy and Procedures on Protection of Human Subjects in EPA Conducted or Supported Research, EPA's Plan to Increase Access to Results of EPA-Funded Scientific Research, EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analysis, and EPA's Scientific Integrity Policy. EPA is also drafting a "Policy for Evaluations and Other Evidence-Building Activities" for release by February 2022.
The Evidence Act builds on longstanding principles of good governance and asks that agencies ensure the use of data and evaluation to support performance management and the improvement of operations. Relatedly, EPA has longstanding performance measurement efforts incorporated throughout the Agency's work. Performance measurement is a part of the Agency's strategic plan development, annual planning and budgeting, operations and implementation, and accountability and results processes to inform decision-making. The Agency also has a history of using Lean Kaizen tools integrated with performance measurement to advance a culture of using data and visual management to support business process improvement and day-to-day operations.
However, the Evidence Act provides an opportunity for EPA to reconsider its capacity to use evaluation, data, statistics, research, analysis, and other evidence-building activities to support policymaking. For example, prior to the Evidence Act, EPA did not have mechanisms to invest consistently or substantially in evaluation for the purpose of evidence-based program design and implementation. Small, decentralized pockets of evaluation expertise exist within EPA, supporting evaluation and other evidence-building projects on an ad hoc basis. The decentralized structure of evaluation and evidence-building makes it challenging to coordinate efficiently across different parts of the Agency. In response to the Evidence Act, EPA seeks to reestablish a centralized evaluation function to support and coordinate Agency evaluations as well as to build capacity for evaluation and other Evidence Act activities across the organization. EPA has included investments in the FY 2022 and FY 2023 President's budgets to support specific evidence-building activities for the Agency Learning Agenda, which will be submitted as part of the FY 2022-2026 EPA Strategic Plan, and to meet Evidence Act requirements to develop a Capacity Assessment and evaluation policy. The Capacity Assessment will aid EPA's efforts to identify staffing and resource capabilities to implement the Evidence Act over the long-term. Identifying Agency strengths and opportunities for improvement will help set priorities, catalyze action, enable decisions that advance the robust use of data and evaluation, and support the routine development and use of evidence in decision-making.
Initial Assessment: EPA's ability to answer the questions in the Agency Learning Agenda
Status
EPA has initiated an assessment of the extent to which EPA has the necessary resources -- expertise, capability, funding, data, technology, partners, organizations, and extramural vehicles -- to answer the questions in three of the Agency's Learning Agenda priority areas. This assessment will generate information that may inform the scope, feasibility, timing, and implementation of the Agency Learning Agenda that will be part of the FY 2022-2026 EPA Strategic Plan.
Furthermore, EPA's understanding of its capacity to address the Learning Agenda' priority questions can facilitate a strategic approach to evaluation and evidence building and prioritize investments in resources and staff. As EPA assesses its capacity to address the priority questions and employ a variety of evidence-building activities, the Agency will consider the coverage, quality, methods, effectiveness, and independence of EPA's statistics; as well as the quality of its evaluation, research, analysis, and other evidence-building efforts. EPA will also consider best practices for the use, protection, dissemination, and generation of data and the production of evidence for use in policymaking.
Early in the development of its learning agenda, EPA identified three priority areas:  Workforce Planning, Grant Commitments Met, and Drinking Water Systems Out of Compliance. A fourth priority area -- Air Pollution Benefits -- is still under development. Consequently, the methodology described in the next section only applies to the first three priority areas. EPA will work closely with the fourth priority area team to assess its capacity to answer priority questions and will include this assessment in the final report.
Methodology
EPA's framework for assessing capacity involved the identification of seven capacity areas, including: data, evaluation design, data collection, data analysis, evaluation expertise, contracting, and funding (See Figure 1). Additionally, consistent with the requirements of the Evidence Act and where appropriate and applicable, EPA assessed key dimensions of the capacity areas including coverage, quality, methods, effectiveness, and independence. These dimensions will provide structure for assessing existing strengths and opportunities for improvement in these areas. EPA anticipates some overlap with the capacity areas and dimensions (See Figure 1. EPA Capacity Areas and Key Dimensions).
A survey was identified as the optimal data collection instrument given the need to assess seven capacity areas, five dimensions, three priority areas, and 12 learning agenda questions.  The capacity areas were used to frame the design of the survey. EPA consulted with survey design experts from EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE).
The target audience/survey respondents included the individual members of the priority area workgroups, starting with the three areas identified by EPA in FY 2020: workforce planning; drinking water systems out of compliance; and grant commitments met. The survey is designed such that priority area workgroup members answer the survey to assess capacity for each learning agenda question.
A survey comprised of a core set of 19 questions covering the seven capacity areas was designed for each Learning Agenda priority area. The different Learning Agenda priority questions necessitated the development of three surveys. These survey questions were repeated for each Learning Agenda priority question, resulting in a total number of survey questions ranging from 53  -  83 (depending on priority area/respective Learning Agenda priority). This approach helped increase the validity of the responses and ensured that respondents answered each survey question with a specific Learning Agenda priority in mind.

                                    Independence
                                 Effectiveness
                                    Method
                                    Quality
                                   Coverage
Figure 1. EPA Capacity Areas and Key Dimensions                                 Capacity Area
                                  Description
Data
 Information required and source(s)
 Data availability
 Data accessibility
 Data quality
Evaluation Design
Types of evaluation designs employed to address the evaluation questions
Data Collection
Strategies and methods for collecting the required information or data
Data Analysis
Analytical techniques to be used
Evaluation Expertise
Access to Staff skills and competencies in evaluation
 Evaluation Design
 Data Collection
 Data Analysis
Contracting
Sufficient contract vehicles and capacity
 Number of contract vehicles
 Available capacity
Funding
Extramural dollars to support the effort
To the extent possible and where appropriate, workgroup members were asked to consider responses over the multiple years required to fully execute the Agency Learning Agenda. The survey process is expected to be augmented by individual or focus group interviews. Survey categories include:
 Learning Agenda Priority Area Workgroup Roles and Responsibilities;
 Availability and Access to Data to Support Answering the Learning Agenda Questions;
 Data Collection Methods Used to Support Answering the Learning Agenda Questions;
 Data Analysis Skills (Basic and Advanced Statistics) and Techniques Used to Support Answering the Learning Agenda Questions;
 Program Evaluation and Evaluation Design;
 Resources to Support the Execution of Evidence-Building Activities to Answer Learning Agenda Questions;
 General Familiarity with Program Evaluation and Evidence-Building Activities (e.g., Respondent's general understanding of program evaluation, data use, statistics, research and development, and lean management); and
 Independence and Use of Results.
A pilot of the survey was launched in April 2021 with a small subset of individuals representing each priority area workgroup. After completion, a follow-up meeting was scheduled to obtain feedback from the respondents regarding key aspects of the survey, including:
 Duration  -  Length of time to complete the survey;
 Clarity  -  Ease of completion and understanding of questions; identification of questions that are unclear or require further explanation; and
 Format/Structure  -  Assessing the format, structure and flow of the survey given the repetitive nature of the questions
The survey was revised to incorporate feedback from the pilot respondents and a final survey was distributed June 2021. After the survey closed, the pilot and final responses were combined, and EPA initiated the analysis of results. The analysis was a critical first step in identifying areas of overlap and divergence regarding workgroup member perspectives about data availability, data quality, methods, and access to experts. A summary highlighting the preliminary findings for each Learning Agenda priority area is presented in the Findings section that follows.
An important next step in the process involves conducting focus groups and interviews with the learning priority area workgroup members to discuss and reconcile the various perspectives and responses that emerged from the survey that require further exploration. After reconciling these perspectives, EPA will summarize the findings and develop a strategy to address gaps in knowledge, skills, data, methods, and access to experts.
The results from the initial pilot will be useful in helping to inform the design of the survey prior to broader application Agencywide.
Potential Limitations
Surveying a single individual (i.e., the workgroup leader) from each priority area workgroup (a total of three people), although a valid approach, presented a concern regarding the small number of respondents. Also, it raised a potential question about whether a single individual's response would mask or fully convey the perspectives of all workgroup members. To mitigate this concern, the survey was distributed to all workgroup members. Consequently, three survey instruments (one for each priority area) were distributed to 13 priority area workgroup members. Ten workgroup members completed the entire survey (75% of members).
Finally, EPA viewed this as an opportunity to understand how a survey approach can work as a component of a Capacity Assessment, before attempting an Agencywide survey approach for the final Capacity Assessment.
Progress to Date and Next Steps
Progress to Date
Data Collection
April 2021: Pilot Survey Launched
May 2021: Integrated Feedback and Revised Pilot Survey                                                                                June 2021: Final Survey Launched
Data Analysis                                                                                July 2021: Preliminary Analysis of Data Conducted
Next Steps
August  -  September 2021: Facilitate Focus Groups 				                  	                                 October 2021:	Draft Action Plan to address                                                                                November 2021  -  February 2022: Implement Action Plan
Anticipated Agency-Specific Challenges and Proposed Solutions to Developing Evidence to Support Agency Priorities
Developing an evidence and evaluation culture that fosters continuous learning is an important goal embraced by EPA's senior leaders. The Learning Agenda has highlighted the need and value of investing resources and time to explore and research questions of greatest importance and interest to achieve the mission. The development of learning agendas, while commonplace to some federal agencies, is new to EPA. Consequently, navigating this new territory requires a measured approach resulting in a slow but steady pace.
Findings
As indicated earlier, the survey results revealed differing perspectives among the respective Learning Agenda priority area workgroup members regarding the various capacity areas. Therefore, findings presented in this section are preliminary and subject to change pending further exploration via focus groups with workgroup members. Keeping this in mind, a common and overarching theme that emerged for each priority workgroup revolved around questions related to data availability, data access, and available funding beyond FY 2022.
Learning Priority Area: Drinking Water Systems Out of Compliance
Priority Question(s)
 To what extent does EPA have ready access to data to measure drinking water compliance reliably and accurately?
 What factors determine system noncompliance and continuous compliance?
 How can we determine if a system has the technical, managerial, and financial capacity to provide safe water on a continuous basis to its customers?
 Does increased use of compliance assurance tools (inspections and enforcement) improve system compliance, and if so, under what circumstances?
 What EPA oversight activities are effective at assessing and improving state programs' ability to drive compliance?
Overview
The linchpin to making progress in this priority area is having appropriate data to measure drinking water compliance reliably and accurately. The team is currently working to determine if the data they have or can access is sufficient. The team believes they will require both internal staff availability and access to external experts (contractors and academics) with expertise in evaluation design and implementation. While they believe they have access to external experts, they do not believe they currently have the necessary EPA staff resources with the skills available for this project.
Learning Priority Area: Workforce Planning
Priority Question(s)
 To what extent does EPA have access to the tools and strategies needed to analyze and understand the Agency's near and long-term workforce needs?
 What are the critical skills needed to support the Agency's mission, now and in the future?
 What are the leading strategies to attract, recruit, train, and retain a diverse workforce? What makes people stay in the Agency long-term?
 How can EPA ensure knowledge is transferred from outgoing to current and incoming staff to support succession planning?
Overview
For Workforce Planning, data availability, uncertainty regarding data quality, and lack of funding beyond FY 2021 are the most significant hindrances and challenges to executing the Learning Agenda priority questions. In the short-term, sufficient data, expertise, and funding are available for two of the four learning agenda priority questions (1 and 3). EPA data does not currently exist to answer priority question 2 (leading strategies to attract, recruit, train and retain a diverse workforce) and priority question 4 (ensure knowledge transfer from outgoing and incoming staff to support succession planning). For priority question 2, EPA may be able to partner with a non-profit organization  -- the American Productivity and Quality Center  --  to access benchmarking and other data that can be used.
Learning Priority Area: Grant Commitments Met
Priority Question(s)
 How do EPA's existing grant award and reporting systems identify and track grant commitments?
 What EPA practices and tools effectively track whether grantees are fulfilling their workplan grant commitments, including outputs and environmental outcomes?
 Are the commitments established in EPA's grant agreements achieving the intended environmental results?
Overview
For this priority area, EPA is fairly confident in its ability to answer priority question 1. For priority questions 2 and 3, EPA sees data availability, data quality, and the availability of funding to support the work as the most significant possible challenges to being able to execute the work.
Initial Assessment Summary
Overall, the execution of Phase 1 of the Capacity Assessment has been a valuable learning experience for EPA. This exercise enhanced the Agency's understanding of the level of effort, time, skills, and resources needed to assess our ability to execute evidence-building activities.
Specifically, the design of the survey instrument required customization for each Learning Agenda priority area and their respective questions. Unfortunately, this level of customization may not be feasible when assessing a broader range of evidence-building activities Agencywide. The approach and survey instrument will require adaptation in light of the broader scope. The preliminary findings from this phase will influence the Agency's approach to the final Capacity Assessment, particularly where there are common challenges. For example, since preliminary findings from the initial Learning Agenda survey suggests common challenges with data access and sharing, the Agencywide Capacity Assessment can explore this in greater depth.

Final Assessment: Assessing EPA's skills, capability, and capacity based on a maturity model
 Maturity Model Overview
Context
Maturity models assess a current state or level of effectiveness along with criteria for achieving the next desired level of performance. For EPA, a maturity model will serve as a roadmap to help establish an evidence-based culture where Agency decisions are informed by evidence, and performance is routinely evaluated for potential improvements. Stakeholder feedback and management buy-in are critical to ensuring that the maturity model will be actionable and can drive EPA towards achieving its desired state. Implementation of the maturity model will enable the Agency to take stock and chart a path forward to ensure it makes progress in critically important areas to EPA. Looking forward, EPA will pursue a holistic approach that integrates the requirements of the Evidence Act with strategic planning and budgeting, regulatory development, program management, scientific research, and continuous improvement efforts. This integration will reinforce the importance of each initiative and foster Agencywide long-term culture change.
Methodology
In January 2021, EPA's Evidence Act Workgroup convened a maturity model subgroup to research and develop the maturity model for EPA and to plan the approach for engaging internal stakeholders and piloting the model. The subgroup is a cross-office team comprised of individuals from national programs and regions with a range of subject matter expertise. The Evaluation Officer, Data Officer, and Statistical Official also participate in the subgroup. To date, the subgroup members have been following the approach below to produce a draft maturity model for Agency review:
 Identify existing background materials  -  As a first step, members of the subgroup conducted a document review and literature search regarding the various elements and approaches/methodologies for developing a maturity model. In addition to drawing from this research, the subgroup reviewed maturity models developed by other federal agencies, including those shared through the Evaluation Officer Council and Max.gov.
 Scope maturity model elements  -  After identifying the maturity model domains, the maturity model subgroup developed a definition for each domain to help clarify the types of activities that would encompass each domain. The definitions were assessed to ensure consistency with EPA's draft Evaluation Policy, the Evidence Act, and OMB Circular definitions. The definitions for each domain are below.

EPA's Maturity Model
EPA's Draft Maturity Model addresses five domains, described in the draft definitions below:
 Evaluation is an assessment using systematic data collection and analysis of one or more programs, policies, and organizations. The purpose of evaluation is to make recommendations to improve, advance, or modify existing programs, policies, projects, or operations.
 Data Use ensures the right people are aware of, have appropriate access to, and have the necessary tools and skills to use the data they need to answer important policy or programmatic questions.
 Statistics and statistical activities are the collection, compilation, processing, or analysis of data from a sample of a population for the purpose of describing or making estimates concerning that population. This includes the development of methods or resources that support those activities. Statistical evidence is the information produced from statistical activities.
 Research and Development activities are defined as creative and systematic work undertaken to develop new data, information, and technologies to support credible decision-making to safeguard human health and ecosystems from environmental pollutants and to enable implementation of programs and policies designed for this purpose. These activities involve both environmental and public health research to better understand and characterize the risks associated with exposure to environmental pollutants; sources, fate, and transport of pollutants in the environment; and solutions to monitor, prevent or mitigate environmental pollutant exposures. Further, Agency decision-making also includes social science and economic research and analysis regarding policy options.
 Lean Management is an approach to managing an organization that supports continuous improvement by using Lean principles and tools paired with routine measurement, visual management, and regular engagement between management and staff to identify and solve problems, realize and sustain process improvements, and more effectively achieve Agency priorities.
   Next, the maturity model subgroup identified the number of maturity model levels (steps in maturity) and fleshed out the attributes (e.g., qualities, standards, and performance) for each domain. Where appropriate, the dimensions of coverage, quality, methods, independence, and effectiveness were integrated into the model. Draft maturity models were developed for Evaluation, Data Use, Research, Statistics, and Lean Management. Since analysis significantly overlaps with activities in the other domains, and the types of analyses conducted by EPA are numerous, the subgroup agreed that a separate maturity model domain for general analysis is not appropriate. Instead, additional discussions are underway to explore whether a maturity model for a specific type of analysis (e.g., regulatory analysis) would add value in terms of supporting the Agency's mission.
   Although a draft of each model is complete, they have not undergone stakeholder review.  The maturity models will be included in the final submission after they have been fully vetted and stakeholder review has been integrated.
 Identify key stakeholders  -  An initial list of internal EPA experts was compiled for each maturity model domain. These stakeholders represent centers of expertise (organizations/offices) and individuals that will bring subject matter experience and professional perspective, identify potential data sources and constraints, and increase the quality of the final product. A Draft Charge to Reviewers was drafted to facilitate discussion and illicit feedback regarding the appropriateness of each maturity model (levels and attributes).
Maturity Model Rollout/Approach, Timing of Activities and Progress to Date
Progress to Date
January 2021: Maturity Model Subgroup Convened
February 2021: Maturity Model Domains Defined
March/April 2021: Maturity Models Drafted (Levels and Attributes completed), Charge to Reviewers and Communications Package Drafted, Stakeholder Engagement Approach Reviewed by Evidence Act Workgroup
May 2021: Executive Management Council Briefing
June 2021: Communications Subgroup
Next Steps
May  -  September 2021: Gather feedback from internal EPA stakeholders via listening sessions, interviews, and written comments
June  -  August 2021: Pilot the maturity model with a targeted set of EPA organizations with expertise in the domain areas
September  -  December 2021: Conduct the Agencywide Capacity Assessment; submit drafts to OMB
February 2022: Issue as part of the FY 2022-2026 EPA Strategic Plan
Stakeholder Engagement
Stakeholder engagement is a critical aspect of ensuring Agencywide support and use of the maturity model. Appropriate senior leader awareness and buy-in is crucial for culture change.  Over the next several months, continued engagement with EPA's leadership will provide for an important component of stakeholder outreach.
In addition, EPA has identified an initial list of key stakeholders for each maturity model domain. Engagement has been hampered in part due to the complex nature of the topic and the novelty of maturity models within EPA.
Anticipated Agency-Specific Challenges and Proposed Solutions to Developing and Using the Maturity Model to Support Agency Priorities
Communication regarding the maturity model has been one of the more challenging aspects of this task. The complex nature of the subject and its novelty within the Agency requires a strategic approach to communicating the various components of the maturity model, how it will be used, by whom, and its benefits. To this end, the maturity model subgroup has taken steps to develop communications materials for use by subgroup members and others. These materials will be piloted and then used widely with stakeholders. In addition, the Agency will work closely with a communications specialist to implement a communications strategy to help translate the benefits of the maturity model in terms that are meaningful for multiple audiences including managers and staff.
The maturity model subgroup continues to discuss the rollout of the models both narrow and broad. Stakeholder input will provide critical feedback regarding how and at what level the responses for the maturity model domains will be aggregated.
Lessons Learned
[NOTE: In the spirit of continuous improvement, EPA will reflect on its experience and will summarize any lessons learned to inform future efforts and the efforts of other CFO Act agencies.]
 The Role of the Data Skills Assessment Survey
Data Skills Assessment
Since data and analytics are increasingly becoming part of everyday business, with different jobs requiring different types of data skills, scientists and data specialists may require advanced technical skills to support data gathering, conversion, cleansing, and analysis; while non-specialists often need to interpret data, communicate its importance, and use it to make decisions.
In support of the Evidence Act and Federal Data Strategy requirements, EPA launched an Agencywide Data Skills Survey on April 19, 2021 to gain input on staff use of data to perform their work. The survey was designed to identify strengths and gaps related to critical data skills, assess staff capacity for those skills, and take actions to ensure its workforce is prepared to support evidence-building activities. In addition to skills questions, questions regarding attitudes and perceptions of EPA's overall culture with respect to data were included in the survey. The survey consisted of the following six categories:
 Respondent Office, Role, and Data Responsibilities;
 Awareness of Options to Access, Share, and Manage Data;
 Skills to Interpret Data and/or Analysis;
 Skills to Visualize Data;
 Skills to Communicate; and
 Organization Value/Use of Evidence.
A total of 2,665 EPA staff completed the survey. Of this number 2,015 answered all of the questions while 650 completed a portion (one percent  -  98 percent). The current analysis only includes completed surveys. Preliminary survey results are currently under review by EPA's Data Governance Council (DGC) and will not be included in this submission. Upon the completion of the DGC review, a dashboard will be developed and options for communicating the survey results and findings Agencywide will be explored. Details regarding the potential limitations, timing of activities, challenges, findings, and lessons learned  --  as described below  --  will be included in the December submission.
 Summary and Findings
Context
This section will bring together the work described in Sections I-II to present an overall summary and findings. EPA will describe the process used to: (1) identify the data sources, methods and data collection instruments needed to assess Agency maturity across the domains; (2) identify and develop the criteria needed to understand the progression from one level to the next in the maturity model; (3) conduct a comparison of the information collected, interpret and summarize the data to identify existing capabilities, deficiencies, and areas where gaps exist, and prepare a report presenting the findings; and (4) develop and present the model based on the scoping effort, indicators, and analysis.
Methodology
EPA will summarize the methodology employed to bring together the information from assessing EPA's ability to answer the questions in the Agency Learning Agenda; from assessing EPA's skills, capability, and capacity based on a maturity model; and information from the data skills survey.
          Final Capacity Assessment Approach, Timing of Activities and Progress to Date: EPA will describe internal major milestones and document progress to date.
          Stakeholder Engagement: EPA will describe activities undertaken receive input and feedback on the Final Assessment.
          Anticipated Agency-Specific Challenges and Proposed Solutions to conducting and using the Capacity Assessment to Support Agency Priorities: Any existing or potential challenges associated with the execution of the approach described above will be highlighted. For each challenge, the Agency will document a proposed mitigation strategy.
          Lessons Learned: In the spirit of continuous improvement, EPA will reflect on its experience and will summarize any lessons learned to inform future efforts and the efforts of other CFO Act agencies.


From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Thursday, October 29, 2015 4:25 PM
To:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
presentations from Air Toxics Workshop here at EPA this week

Hi Katie  -  Here are two presentations from the Air Toxics Workshop that was here at EPA this week. One is an update on NATA and the other is about the fenceline monitoring used in the recent petroleum refinery rule and which I have also included in the coke oven ICR.

_____________________________________________________________
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D 243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

<< Air toxic Passive Fenceline Presentation-Jason.pdf >>
<< NATA AT Monitoring Workshop V5-Ted.pdf >>