[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46442-46443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-23506]



[[Page 46442]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6154-6]


Science Advisory Board; Notification of Public Advisory Committee 
Meetings

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, 
notice is hereby given that two committees of the Science Advisory 
Board (SAB) will meet on the dates and times described below. All times 
noted are Eastern Time. All meetings are open to the public, however, 
due to limited space, seating at meetings will be on a first-come 
basis. For further information concerning specific meetings, please 
contact the individuals listed below. Documents that are the subject of 
SAB reviews are normally available from the originating EPA office and 
are not available from the SAB Office.

1. Strategic Ranking Criteria Subcommittee (SRCS)

    The Strategic Ranking Criteria Subcommittee (SRCS), an ad hoc 
subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board's (SAB) Executive Committee, 
will meet on Friday, September 18, 1998, beginning no earlier than 9:00 
am and ending no later than 5:00 pm. The meeting will be held in the 
SAB Conference Room (Room 3709) at the EPA Waterside Mall Complex, 401 
M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
    Purpose--The purpose of the meeting is to engage in a consultation 
with Agency staff from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) 
on possible criteria that could be applied to evaluate and compare 
Agency programs and activities in order to inform Agency planning and 
budgeting.
    Background--Under the Agency's strategic planning and budgeting 
framework, EPA aligns all of its resources, people and activities under 
10 strategic goals, 42 objectives and approximately 126 sub-objectives. 
Over the last two years, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer 
(OCFO) facilitated a comparative analysis of the risks addressed by 
EPA's strategic sub-objectives. The results of the comparative analysis 
were used to better inform EPA's planning and budgeting priorities. 
OCFO's short-term goal is to improve the scientific basis for the 
existing comparative risk ranking process and to introduce cost and 
economic measures into the comparative analysis of the Agency's sub-
objectives and relevant activities for use in the FY2001 planning and 
budgeting process.
    Charge--OCFO is asking the Science Advisory Board to engage in a 
consultation on possible criteria that could be applied to evaluate and 
compare Agency sub-objectives and activities. OCFO has also begun work 
to develop cost and economic measures for evaluating sub-objectives. 
Although the primary focus of the consultation will be on the risk 
criteria, OCFO is also requesting feedback from panel members on 
proposed categories of economic evaluation criteria and possible 
measures for evaluating the relative benefits and costs of EPA's sub-
objectives and activities.
    OCFO plans to utilize the results from the consultation to develop 
guidance on comparative analysis for Agency program offices to use in 
the FY2001 planning and budgeting process. OCFO is also requesting the 
SAB consider reviewing the results of the program offices' analyses at 
a subsequent meeting. The primary purpose of the second meeting would 
be to assess the extent to which the information provided by the 
program offices scientifically support the comparative analysis of the 
sub-objectives and relevant activities.
    Finally, OCFO is interested in lessons learned from the SAB's past 
and present efforts (e.g., the SAB's Integrated Risk Project--IRP) that 
may complement, or have applicability to, developing long-term, 
scientifically robust approaches for conducting comparative risk and 
benefit-cost analyses.

Comparative Risk Analysis

    Comments are solicited on both the overall approach and the 
specific sections of the existing and the proposed future risk ranking 
approach to contribute to the FY 2001 planning and budgeting process. 
OCFO requests that SAB panel members comment on the strengths and 
weaknesses of the existing approach, suggest additional factors for 
consideration, and otherwise provide recommendations for both short-and 
long-term improvements or alternatives to the existing process.
    The following questions apply to all three types of risk (health, 
ecological, and quality-of-life) used to evaluate the strategic sub-
objectives in the previous comparative risk-ranking exercise.
    (a) Were the attributes and dimensions used to define the risk 
ranks adequate? What other risk attributes/dimensions should be 
incorporated (e.g., sustainability)?
    (b) Are three levels of risk (high, medium and low) sufficient to 
distinguish differences among the various EPA programs? Can additional 
levels be added and still be defensible given inherently large 
uncertainties? How many levels would be useful and still feasible and 
defensible?
    (c) Were the threshold values of the attributes/dimensions that 
define the ranks adequate? Given that any set of values will be 
somewhat subjective and arbitrary, can the SAB recommend another set, 
or a process for developing more useful values?
    (d) The information for the initial rankings developed for the 
previous comparative analysis was completely qualitative. How well does 
the new protocol characterize risk for the risk ranking process, both 
overall and the specific sections?
    (e) How should uncertainty be characterized for the purposes of 
risk rankings?
    (f) Are there alternative ranking methods and/or analytical 
approaches that should be considered for comparative risk analysis in 
this context?
    (g) What long-term improvements should OCFO consider in conducting 
comparative risk analysis for planning and budgeting purposes?
    (h) What past/present SAB activities (e.g., IRP) complement this 
effort and what lessons can be learned from these activities?

Comparative Cost, Benefit and Economic Analyses

    As noted above, the Agency is working to develop cost and economic 
measures for evaluating Agency sub-objectives to support the annual 
planning and multi-year-planning processes and to establish a baseline 
and framework for utilizing economics in strategic planning.
    The most immediate requirement for OCFO is to develop useful cost 
and economic criteria for evaluating investments and dis-investments 
for the FY2001 annual planning process. Four categories of economic 
measures are proposed: agency costs, social costs, benefits (human 
health, ecological and quality of life, whether monetized, quantitative 
or qualitative), and equity considerations (e.g., effects of agency 
actions on sensitive sub-populations, localized geographic effects, and 
environmental justice). The benefits component of this analysis should 
correspond closely to the risk reduction information to be acquired as 
part of the comparative risk analysis.
    OCFO requests feedback from SAB panel members on the following 
areas:
    (a) Is the general approach the OCFO is considering adequate for 
characterizing the relative costs and benefits achieved by EPA's sub-
objectives and relevant activities?

[[Page 46443]]

    (b) Are OCFO's suggested cost and economic measures adequate for 
characterizing the relative costs and benefits achieved by EPA's sub-
objectives and relevant activities?
    (c) Are the linkages between the benefits and the reductions in 
risks for the same sub-objectives and activities clear and unambiguous?
    For Further Information--Copies of the materials provided to the 
Subcommittee are not available from the SAB Staff. Single copies of 
these documents may be obtained from Ms. Anita Street, Office of the 
Chief Financial Officer, telephone (202) 260-3626, or via E-mail at: 
[email protected]. For additional information, including a draft 
agenda, contact Ms. Mary Winston, SAB Committee Operations Staff, at 
tel. (202) 260-2554 or via E-mail at: [email protected]. Any member 
of the public wishing to submit oral or written comments to the 
Subcommittee must contact Stephanie Sanzone, Designated Federal Officer 
for the Subcommittee, in writing, no later than 4:00 pm Eastern Time on 
September 14, 1998 at Science Advisory Board (1400), U.S. EPA, 
Washington, DC 20460, tel. (202) 260-6557; fax (202) 260-7118; or E-
mail: [email protected]. Oral comments will be limited to 5 
minutes per individual or group. Written comments in any length may be 
provided to Ms. Sanzone at the above address prior to the meeting. See 
below for details on providing comments to the SAB.

2. Quality Management Subcommittee (QMS)

    The Quality Management Subcommittee (QMS), of the Science Advisory 
Board's (SAB) Environmental Engineering Committee, will meet from 
Tuesday, September 22, 1998, beginning no earlier than 9:00 am through 
Thursday September 24, ending no later than 5:00 pm. The meeting will 
be held in the SAB Conference Room (Room 3709) at the EPA Waterside 
Mall Complex, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
    Purpose--At its April 27-29, 1998 public meeting, the Subcommittee 
reviewed the Agency's quality management program and project-level 
documents (for further information, the charge, and document 
availability, see 63 Federal Register 17000, April 7, 1998). The 
purpose of the September 22-24 meeting is to review the implementation 
of EPA's quality system.
    For Further Information--For additional information, including a 
draft agenda, contact Ms. Mary Winston, SAB Committee Operations Staff, 
at tel. (202) 260-2554 or via E-mail at: [email protected]. Any 
member of the public wishing to submit oral or written comments to the 
Subcommittee must contact Kathleen White Conway, Designated Federal 
Officer (DFO) for the Subcommittee, in writing, no later than 4:00 pm 
Eastern Time on September 16, 1998 at Science Advisory Board (1400), 
U.S. EPA, Washington, DC 20460, tel. (202) 260-2558; fax (202) 260-
7118; or E-mail: [email protected]. Oral comments will be limited 
to 5 minutes per individual or group. Written comments in any length 
may be provided to the DFO at the above address prior to the meeting. 
See below for details on providing comments to the SAB.

Providing Oral or Written Comments at SAB Meetings

    The Science Advisory Board expects that public statements presented 
at its meetings will not repeat previously submitted oral or written 
statements. In general, each individual or group making an oral 
presentation will be limited to a total time of ten minutes. This time 
may be reduced at the discretion of the SAB, depending on meeting 
circumstances. Oral presentations at teleconferences will normally be 
limited to three minutes per speaker or organization. Written comments 
(at least 35 copies) received in the SAB Staff Office sufficiently 
prior to a meeting date, may be mailed to the relevant SAB committee or 
subcommittee prior to its meeting; comments received too close to the 
meeting date will normally be provided to the committee at its meeting. 
Written comments, which may of any length, may be provided to the 
relevant committee or subcommittee up until the time of the meeting.

The Science Advisory Board

    Information concerning the Science Advisory Board, its structure, 
function, and composition, may be found in The FY1997 Annual Report of 
the Staff Director which is available from the SAB Committee Evaluation 
and Support Staff (CESS) by contacting US EPA, Science Advisory Board 
(1400), Attention: CESS, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460 or via 
fax (202) 260-1889. Additional information concerning the SAB can be 
found on the SAB Home Page at: http://www.epa.gov/sab.
    Copies of SAB prepared final reports mentioned in this Federal 
Register Notice may be obtained immediately from the SAB Home Page or 
by mail/fax from the SAB's Committee Evaluation and Support Staff at 
(202) 260-4126, or via fax at (202) 260-1889. Please provide the SAB 
report number when making a request.

Meeting Access

    Individuals requiring special accommodation at SAB meetings, 
including wheelchair access, should contact the appropriate DFO at 
least five business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate 
arrangements can be made.

    Dated: August 26, 1989.
Donald G. Barnes,
Staff Director, Science Advisory Board.
[FR Doc. 98-23506 Filed 8-31-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P