[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 30, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15160-15163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-7771]



[[Page 15160]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6317-3]


Science Advisory Board; Notice of Public Meetings

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, 
notice is hereby given that two Subcommittees of the Advisory Council 
on Clean Air Compliance Analysis of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) 
will meet on the dates and times described below. All times noted are 
Eastern Time and all meetings are open to the public, however, seating 
is limited and available on a first come basis. Documents that are the 
subject of SAB reviews are normally available from the originating EPA 
Office and are not available from the SAB Office. Public drafts of SAB 
reports are available to the Agency and the public from the SAB Office. 
Details on availability are noted below.

Background

    The Air Quality Models Subcommittee (AQMS) and the Health and 
Ecological Effects Subcommittee (HEES) (both part of the Science 
Advisory Board's (SAB) Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance 
Analysis), will each hold public meetings on the dates and times 
described below. For further information concerning the specific 
meetings described in this section, please contact the individuals 
listed below. These public meetings are a follow-up to earlier Council, 
AQMS and HEES public meetings held on January 22 & 23, 1998 (AQMS), 
January 29 & 30, 1998 (HEES) and February 5 & 6, 1998 (Council) (See 62 
FR 67363, Wednesday, December 24, 1997) pertaining to the ongoing 
review of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) Section 812 
Prospective Study of Costs and Benefits. (See also earlier meetings 
pertaining to the Prospective Study as announced in 62 FR 10045, 
Wednesday, March 5, 1997; 62 FR 19320, April 21, 1997; and 62 FR 32605, 
June 16, 1997).
    Consistent with the apparent Congressional intent behind Section 
812 of the 1990 CAAA, and with the Environmental Protection Agency's 
(EPA's) judgments regarding the potential utility of a comprehensive 
economic assessment of the Clean Air Act, the four fundamental goals of 
the first Prospective Study to be submitted to Congress are stated 
succinctly as follows:
    (a) To facilitate greater understanding of the value of America's 
overall investment in clean air, particularly the value of the 
additional requirements established by the 1990-CAAA (CAAA-90);
    (b) To facilitate greater understanding of where future investments 
in air pollution control might yield the greatest reduction in adverse 
human health and/or environmental effects for the resources expended;
    (c) To help evaluate the significance of potential new and emerging 
information pertaining to the benefits and costs of air pollution 
control;
    (d) To help identify areas of economic and scientific research 
where additional effort might improve the comprehensiveness of and/or 
decrease the uncertainty associated with future estimates of the 
benefits and costs of air pollution control.
    Pursuant to the above four goals, the Agency has embarked on and 
engaged the Council and its subcommittees in review of the Prospective 
Study activities. These activities involve a number of component 
studies, such as analytical design, scenario development, emissions 
profiles, air quality modeling, physical effects modeling, direct cost 
estimation, sector studies, air toxics analysis, economic valuation, 
comparison of benefits and costs, and report generation. Working drafts 
of relevant portions of these components, along with focused charges 
have been presented to the Council and its two subcommittees, the Air 
Quality Models Subcommittee (AQMS) and the Health and Ecological 
Effects Subcommittee (HEES). For the most recent reviews, the Council, 
AQMS and HEES prepared the following Advisories: (a) Prospective Study 
I: Advisory by the Air Quality Models Subcommittee on the Air Quality 
Models and Emissions Estimates Initial Studies, EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-98-
02, September 9, 1998; (b) Advisory on the CAAA of 1990 Section 812 
Prospective Study: Overview of Air Quality and Emissions Estimates 
Modeling, Health and Ecological Valuation Issues Initial Studies, EPA-
SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-98-003, September 9, 1998; and (c) An SAB Advisory on 
the Health and Ecological Effects Initial Studies of the Section 812 
Prospective Study: Report to Congress, EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-99-005, 
February 10, 1999. (See below for how to obtain copies of these reports 
from the SAB).
    Upcoming meetings are described below. Other meetings, including a 
meeting of the full Council are in the planning stage and will take 
place this spring or summer. These meetings will be announced in a 
subsequent Federal Register Notice.
    The draft document that presents, compiles and documents the 
results and methodologies used for the first draft of the Prospective 
Study: Report to Congress, including the Appendices to the draft, which 
are the subject of these reviews will be available upon request from 
the originating EPA office (See below for how to obtain copies from the 
EPA Program Office).

1. Health and Ecological Effects Subcommittee (HEES)

    The Health and Ecological Effects Subcommittee (HEES) of the 
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis will review the draft 
Prospective Study: Report to Congress, with a focus on the health and 
ecological aspects of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) Section 812 
Prospective Study data, emissions modeling assumptions, methodology, 
results and documentation of human health effects, ecological effects, 
and assessment of impact on stratospheric ozone. Specific review 
materials include: Draft Appendix D: Human Health Effects; Draft 
Appendix E: Ecological Effects; and Draft Appendix G: Stratospheric 
Ozone Assessment. The HEES will meet on Tuesday, April 20, 1999, from 
9:30 am to 5:00 pm and Wednesday, April 21, 1999 from 9:00 am to 4:00 
pm. The meeting will take place in the Latham Hotel, 3000 M Street, 
N.W., Washington, DC 20007; tel. (202) 726-5000.
    The draft charge to the HEES is as follows:
    It is respectfully requested that the Council--and its subsidiary 
HEES-- review the forthcoming materials and provide advice to the 
Agency pursuant to the following general charge questions, consistent 
with the review responsibilities of the Council as defined in section 
812 of the CAAA90:1.
    (a) Are the input data used for each component of the analysis 
sufficiently valid and reliable for the intended analytical purpose?
    (b) Are the models, and the methodologies they employ, used for 
each component of the analysis sufficiently valid and reliable for the 
intended analytical purpose?
    (c) If the answers to either of the two questions above is 
negative, what specific alternative assumptions, data or methodologies 
does the Council recommend the Agency consider using for the first 
prospective analysis?
    While the above charge defines the general scope of the advice 
requested from the Council and the HEES, a number of specific questions 
are presented below for which the Agency is particularly interested in 
obtaining

[[Page 15161]]

advice from the Council and HEES. In addition, further specific 
questions and issues may be presented for consideration to the Council 
and HEES during the discussions scheduled to take place on April 20-21, 
1999.
    (d) In response to the emergence of new information and analysis 
EPA has recently re-evaluated the literature and developed a new 
approach to estimating reductions in mortality resulting from decreased 
ozone concentrations. EPA proposes to use a Monte-Carlo based meta-
analysis of the literature relating ozone concentrations and mortality, 
and requests comment on the following four issues:
    (1) Soundness of Approach--Reviewers should address the suitability 
of the study authors' meta-analysis technique, and evaluate the method 
against other possible meta-analysis techniques.
    (2) Study Selection Criteria--Reviewers should consider the 
appropriateness and comprehensiveness of the nine study selection 
criteria used in the meta-analysis, and/or suggest alternative or 
additional criteria where appropriate. In particular, EPA requests 
comments on the use of European studies to characterize US 
concentration-response functions.
    (3) Treatment of Uncertainty--Reviewers should specifically address 
any concerns or problems associated with the authors' treatment of 
uncertainty surrounding reported ozone regression coefficients.
    (4) Interpretation of Results--EPA seeks guidance on interpreting 
the meta-analysis results relative to the Pope PM study; i.e., the 
appropriateness of using these results to estimate the share of 
mortality attributable to ozone exposure, versus mortality incremental 
to the results of the Pope study.
    (e) HEES encouraged EPA to evaluate a wide range of threshold 
assumptions in the PM mortality analysis. In response to HEES' comments 
on this issue, EPA performed a sensitivity analysis of thresholds below 
and above the annual PM2.5 standard of 15 g/m\3\. EPA requests 
guidance from the HEES on the following points:
    (1) Clarification of the HEES analytic basis for rejecting use of 
the lowest observed effects level as estimated in the underlying health 
effects literature;
    (2) Clarification of the analytic basis for any threshold greater 
than the 15 g/m\3\ level;
    (3) Suggestions for an analytically defensible approach to 
developing concentration-response functions that correctly adjust for 
the threshold assumption. In particular, EPA requests advice on whether 
introducing a threshold implies changes to the functional form and 
slope of the C-R function that is derived from the underlying studies.
    (f) Regarding assessment of the benefits of reductions in air 
toxics, EPA requests guidance and clarification from the HEES as to how 
in-depth review of high-risk HAPs can be used to generate estimates of 
avoided health impacts due to reductions in HAP exposure, given the 
scarcity of HAP monitoring data and HEES significant concerns about the 
reliability of HAP concentration estimates generated by the ASPEN 
model.
    (g) In response to HEES recommendations, EPA is developing a 
qualitative characterization of regional variation in C-R functions. 
EPA requests guidance on specific studies that document the extent of 
regional variation.
    (h) EPA requests HEES review of the proposed method to estimate 
changes in health risks among Canadians and Mexicans that would result 
from CAAA controls. EPA requests HEES comments on the validity and 
defensibility of the assumptions and methods proposed for estimating 
these effects and on the suitability of the approach.
    (i) In response to HEES suggestions, EPA plans to: incorporate the 
revised Pope data; reduce PM-related neonatal mortality to an 
illustrative calculation; incorporate the most current research on CO-
related health effects, chronic bronchitis incidence, and ozone-related 
emergency room visits for asthma; develop a summary table of 
uncertainties; and present non-monetized health benefit results 
relative to national incidence rates. EPA requests HEES review of these 
changes in the review material submitted to ensure they adequately 
reflect concerns expressed in previous HEES meetings.
    (j) EPA requests SAB review of our ecological assessment framework. 
In particular, EPA has incorporated in the 812 report extensive 
discussion of: major stressors from air emissions subject to control 
under the CAAA and a broad range of possible impacts on ecosystem 
structure and function. EPA also requests review of our clarification 
of the selection process for identifying those elements of ecological 
impacts that we find suitable for quantification and monetization, 
based on the level of understanding of the effect and the ability to 
develop a defensible causal link between changes in air pollution 
emissions and specific ecological impacts.
    (k) EPA requests review of other modifications incorporated in the 
ecological evaluation approach, including the following:
    (1) Qualitative characterization of interaction between air toxics 
and acidification in aquatic systems;
    (2) Quantitative accounting for lag times in the acidification 
analysis and qualitative characterization in other parts of the 
analysis;
    (3) Quantitative consideration of nitrogen saturation of 
terrestrial ecosystems;
    (4) Use of the PnET II model in place of the deSteiguer study for 
estimating the impacts of ozone exposure on commercial forest stands;
    (5) The criteria for selection of case study estuaries and the 
treatment of case study results in the analysis of the impacts of 
nitrogen deposition;
    (6) The rationale for considering the recreational fishing impacts 
of nitrogen deposition in a qualitative manner only.

2. Air Quality Models Subcommittee (AQMS)

    The Air Quality Models Subcommittee (AQMS) of the Advisory Council 
on Clean Air Compliance Analysis will meet Tuesday, May 4, 1999, from 
9:00 am to 5:00 pm and Wednesday, May 5, 1999 from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm. 
The meeting will take place in the Science Advisory Board Conference 
Room M3709, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20460.
    In this meeting, the AQMS will review the draft Clean Air Act 
Amendments (CAAA) Section 812 Prospective Study: Report to Congress 
with a focus on the data, emissions modeling assumptions, methodology, 
results and documentation. Specific review materials include: Draft 
Appendix A: Scenario Development and Emissions Modeling; Draft Appendix 
C: Air Quality Modeling; Memorandum ``Use of a Homology Mapping 
Technique to Estimate Ozone and Particulate Matter; Concentrations for 
Unmonitored Areas,'' from Sharon G. Douglas, Robert K. Iwamiya, and 
Hans P. Deuel, dated: 26 March 1999; Excerpt from Draft Human Health 
Effects Appendix D describing VNA method. In previous public meetings 
of the Council (See 61 FR 54196, Thursday, October 17, 1996, and 62 FR 
10045, Wednesday, March 5, 1997 for further information), the Council 
advised the Agency staff that the Subcommittee should review the 
emissions modeling information before proceeding to conduct any model 
runs. The May 5, 1997 public teleconference (See 62 FR 19320, Monday, 
April 21, 1997) of the AQMS was conducted for this purpose and produced 
a letter report (EPA-SAB-

[[Page 15162]]

COUNCIL-LTR-97-012, dated September 9, 1997, see below for ordering 
information).
    The charge to the AQMS is as follows:
    It is respectfully requested that the Council --and its subsidiary 
AQMS-- review the forthcoming materials and provide advice to the 
Agency pursuant to the following general charge questions, consistent 
with the review responsibilities of the Council as defined in section 
812 of the CAAA90:1
    (a) Are the input data used for each component of the analysis 
sufficiently valid and reliable for the intended analytical purpose?
    (b) Are the models, and the methodologies they employ, used for 
each component of the analysis sufficiently valid and reliable for the 
intended analytical purpose?
    (c) If the answers to either of the two questions above is 
negative, what specific alternative assumptions, data or methodologies 
does the Council recommend the Agency consider using for the first 
prospective analysis?
    While the above charge defines the general scope of the advice 
requested from the Council and the AQMS, several specific questions are 
presented below for which the Agency is particularly interested in 
obtaining advice from the Council and AQMS. In addition, further 
specific questions and issues may be presented for consideration to the 
Council and AQMS during the discussions scheduled to take place on May 
4-5, 1999.
    (d) Do the revisions made to the particulate matter emissions 
inventories--as described in the draft Report to Congress Emissions 
Appendix--adequately address the concerns raised by the Council and the 
AQMS during the January-February 1998 review meetings? If not, are 
there further adjustments which the Council and AQMS would recommend be 
made in future assessments; and do residual potential errors in the 
inventories warrant--in the judgment of the Council and AQMS--inclusion 
in EPA's pending report specific caveats regarding the magnitude and 
direction of potential biases which might be introduced through 
reliance on these inventories?
    (e) The Project Team has used an expanded array of air quality 
model-derived adjustment factors to estimate changes relative to 
baseline air quality concentrations. Specifically, rather than a single 
adjustment factor applied in the Retrospective Study to estimate 
concentration changes across the entire range of initial ambient 
concentrations for a given pollutant, ten separate adjustment factors 
were calculated and applied based on decile midpoints generated by the 
relevant air quality model. Do the Council and AQMS consider this 
methodological change to reflect an improvement in the validity and 
reliability of projected concentration changes relative to the 
previous, single adjustment factor approach?
    (f) The Project Team has used an alternative spatial interpolation 
method to estimate baseline air quality concentrations in locations 
which do not have adequate local monitoring data. In the Retrospective 
Study, complete representation of initial air quality conditions in the 
48 contiguous states for each pollutant was obtained by simple spatial 
interpolation to each unmonitored or undermonitored location from the 
closest relevant, sufficiently operated monitor. Based on advice from 
the AQMS and Council pursuant to the January-February 1998 review 
meetings, the Project Team sought to develop an enhanced methodology 
based on a ``space-time continuum'' concept described by the AQMS. The 
``homology mapping technique'' subsequently developed by the Project 
Team proved promising in initial validation tests; however the Project 
Team concluded that additional development and validation work should 
be completed before using the tool in the context of the section 812 
studies. As an alternative, an enhanced version of the traditional 
spatial interpolation method was developed which relies on inverse 
distance-weighted interpolation from multiple surrounding monitors. 
This technique is referred to as ``Voronoi Neighbor Averaging (VNA)''. 
The Project Team requests advice from the Council and AQMS on the 
following two sub-questions:
    (1) Do the Council and AQMS consider the homology mapping technique 
a reasonable adaptation of the space-time continuum concept previously 
advanced? If so, what specific additional development, testing, and 
validation steps do the Council and AQMS recommend be undertaken by the 
Project Team to facilitate potential use of this technique in future 
assessments?
    (2) Do the Council and AQMS consider the change to the VNA approach 
to reflect an improvement in the validity and reliability of projected 
initial air quality concentration estimates relative to the previous, 
single monitor spatial interpolation method?

3. Air Quality Models Subcommittee: (AQMS)--Teleconference

    The Air Quality Models Subcommittee (AQMS) of the Council will 
conduct a public teleconference on Thursday, June 3, 1999, from 11:00 
am to 1:00 pm, Eastern Time, to review status of revisions to the draft 
Prospective Study: Report to Congress, as well as to conduct edits to 
its own draft report in review of the prospective study at the 
previously scheduled meeting on May 4 and 5, 1999 (see above). Please 
contact one of the SAB Staff contacts listed below to see if these 
drafts are available to the public at that time. This Teleconference 
will be hosted out of the Science Advisory Board Conference Room (Room 
M3709), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
    (a) Contacting Program Office Staff and Obtaining Review 
Materials--To obtain copies of the draft documents pertaining to the 
CAA Section 812 Prospective Study, please contact Ms. Catrice 
Jefferson, Office Manager, Office of Policy Analysis and Review (OPAR), 
(Mail Code 6103), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, 
SW, Washington, DC 20460. Tel. (202) 260-5580; FAX (202) 260-9766, or 
via e-mail at <[email protected]>. To discuss technical aspects 
of the draft document pertaining to the CAAA-90 Section 812 Prospective 
Study: Report to Congress, please contact Mr. James DeMocker, Office of 
Policy Analysis and Review (OPAR) (Mail Code 6103), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. Tel. (202) 
260-8980; FAX (202) 260-9766, or via e-mail at: <[email protected]>.
    (b) Contacting SAB Staff and Obtaining Meeting Information--To 
obtain copies of the meeting agendas or rosters of participants, please 
contact Ms. Diana L. Pozun, Management Assistant to the Council, AQMS 
and HEES, Science Advisory Board (1400), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Washington, DC 20460; at Tel. (202) 260-8432; FAX (202) 260-
7118; or via e-mail: <[email protected]>. To discuss technical or 
logistical aspects of the AQMS and HEES subcommittee review process or 
to submit written comments, please contact Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjian 
(Tel. (202) 260-2560; or via e-mail: <[email protected]>), and/
or Dr. Angela Nugent (Tel. (202) 260-4126; or via e-mail: 
<[email protected]>), Designated Federal Officers to the Council, 
AQMS and HEES, Science Advisory Board

[[Page 15163]]

(1400), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460, FAX 
(202) 260-7118. To obtain information concerning the teleconference and 
how to participate in the SAB Conference Room or to call in, please 
contact Ms. Pozun.
    (c) Providing Public Comments to the SAB--To request time to 
provide brief public comments at the meetings, please contact Ms. Diana 
L. Pozun in writing by mail, FAX or E-Mail at the addresses given above 
no later than one week prior to each of the meetings. Please be sure to 
specify which meeting(s) you wish to attend and provide comments, a 
summary of the issue you intend to present, your name and address 
(incl. phone, fax and e-mail) and the organization (if any) you will 
represent. Written comments should be submitted to Dr. Kooyoomjian at 
the above address prior to the meeting date.
    (d) Obtaining Copies of SAB Reports--Copies of SAB prepared final 
reports mentioned in this Federal Register Notice may be obtained 
immediately from the SAB Home Page (www.epa.gov/sab)or by mail/fax from 
the SAB's Committee Evaluation and Support Staff at Tel. (202) 260-
4126, or FAX (202) 260-1889. Please provide the SAB report number when 
making your request. Draft reports in progress can be obtained from Ms. 
Pozun once the Committee or Subcommittee Chair has released the draft.

Providing Oral or Written Comments at SAB Meetings

    The Science Advisory Board (SAB) expects that public statements 
presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously 
submitted oral or written statements. In general, opportunities for 
oral comment at face-to-face meetings will be usually limited to ten 
minutes per speaker. At teleconference meetings, speakers will be 
usually limited to three minutes per speaker and no more than fifteen 
minutes total. Written comments (at least 35 copies) received in the 
SAB Staff Office sufficiently prior to a meeting date (usually one week 
prior to a meeting), may be mailed to the committees or its respective 
subcommittees prior to its meeting; comments received too close to the 
meeting date will normally be provided to the Council and its 
subcommittees at the meeting. Written comments may be provided up until 
the time of the meeting.

Meeting Access

    Individuals requiring special accommodation at this meeting, 
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: March 24, 1999.
Donald G. Barnes,
Staff Director, Science Advisory Board.
[FR Doc. 99-7771 Filed 3-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U