[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 23, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33483-33484]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-15978]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-6365-4]
Science Advisory Board; Notice of Public Meetings
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463,
the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (the Council) of
the Science Advisory Board (SAB) will hold a public meeting on Tuesday,
July 13, 1999, from 9:30 am to 5:00 pm, Eastern time and Wednesday,
July 14, 1999, from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. The Meeting will take place in
the Conference Room of the Office of Children's Health Protection (Room
W911), United States Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW,
Washington DC 20460. The meeting is open to the public, however,
seating is on a first come basis. Materials that are the subject of SAB
reviews are normally available from the responsible EPA Program office
and are not available from the SAB. All times noted are Eastern Time.
The Council will review a draft Prospective Study: Report to
Congress, prepared by the Agency as part of implementing Section 812 of
the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990. The Council will address
the following charge questions provided by the Agency:
Charge #1: Are the input data used for each component of the
analysis sufficiently valid and reliable for the intended analytical
purpose? If not, does the Council recommend the Agency consider using
alternative data or assumptions for the first prospective analysis?
Charge #2: Are the models, and the methodologies they employ, used
for each component of the analysis sufficiently valid and reliable for
the intended analytical purpose? If not, does the Council recommend the
Agency consider using alternative models or methodologies for the first
prospective analysis?
Charge #3: Are the analytical results developed using these data
and methodologies sufficiently valid and reliable for the intended
analytical purpose, and are the characterizations of the analytical
methods and results sufficiently accurate and appropriate for the
intended expository purpose?
While the above charge questions define the general scope of the
advice requested from the Council, a number of specific additional
questions are presented below for which the Agency is interested in
obtaining particular advice from the Council. In addition, further
specific questions and issues may be presented for consideration to the
Council during the discussions scheduled to take place on July 13-14,
1999. The supplemental charge questions are listed below, and detailed
background information pertaining to each of these specific
supplemental charge questions is included in an attachment to this
memorandum.
Charge #4: Unquantified/Unmonetized Benefit and Disbenefit
Categories.
(4a) Does the Council endorse the recommendation of HEES members
that EPA strive to provide estimates of changes in some additional
health and welfare effects in order to provide information on the
potential relative importance of currently unquantified or unmonetized
endpoints?
(4b) Does the Council concur with the simplistic approaches for
providing screening-level estimates proposed by EPA for each endpoint
and for inclusion of these calculations in the 812 report as
illustrative calculations presented in an appendix?
(4c) Does the Council have specific suggestions for additional
benefit or disbenefit categories not listed by EPA? If so, does the
Council have specific suggestions for methods for developing screening
level estimates of these categories?
Charge #5: Value of Avoided Chronic Bronchitis.
(5a) Does the Council concur with EPA's proposed continued use of
the adjusted WTP value from Viscusi et al.--i.e. $260,000 per incidence
(1990$)--to support the primary benefit estimate?
(5b) If the Council does not concur with EPA's proposed use of the
Viscusi, et al. value in the primary estimate, does the Council
recommend using an unadjusted value based on the cost-of-illness
method, or is an adjustment based on empirical evidence relating COI to
WTP appropriate? (In previous reviews, the Council has recommended that
``there is not a sufficient empirical basis for making these
adjustments at this time,'' but suggested that EPA ``include some
illustrative calculations to show the sensitivity of total benefits to
the range of possible adjustments to cost-of-illness estimates.'' SAB,
EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-98-003, September 9, 1998 page 9).
(5c) If the Council does not concur with EPA's proposed use of the
Viscusi, et al. value to determine the primary benefit estimate, does
the council recommend using the Viscusi et al. value in a sensitivity
analysis to illustrate potential differences between COI and WTP?
Charge #6: Value of Avoided Visibility Degradation.
(6a) Does the Council concur with EPA's proposed use of the WTP
value from McClelland et al. (1993)--i.e, $14 per household per
deciview improvement (1990$)--to support the primary benefit estimate?
If not, should EPA treat residential/urban visibility improvements as a
screening level benefit category to be reported in an appendix, or does
the Council have a specific recommendation for an alternative estimate
of the value for this endpoint?
(6b) Does the Council concur with EPA's proposed use of the WTP
values from Chestnut and Rowe (1990)--i.e. $4.91 to $13.51 per
household per deciview improvement (1990$) for households living
outside of the region where a Class I area is located and $7.98 to
$16.82 per household per deciview
[[Page 33484]]
improvement (1990$) for households living in the region where a Class I
area is located--to support the primary benefit estimate? If not,
should EPA treat Class I area visibility improvements as a screening
level benefit category to be reported in an appendix, or does the
Council have a specific recommendation for an alternative estimate of
the value for this endpoint?
Charge #7: Value of Avoided Premature Mortality.
(7a) Does the Council concur with EPA's proposal to continue using
the Weibull distribution as the most appropriate distribution to
characterize the variability in the 26 VSL estimates? If not, does the
Council have a specific recommendation for an appropriate distribution
of these values?
(7b) Does the Council concur with EPA's proposed use of the
arithmetic mean as the appropriate point estimate for the VSL? If not,
does the Council have a specific recommendation for an appropriate
alternative point estimate?
(7c) Does the Council concur with EPA's proposal to continue using
5 percent as the appropriate discount rate for estimating the value of
an avoided mortality incidence using the statistical life years method?
If not, does the Council have a specific recommendation for the
appropriate discount rate?
(7d) Does the Council concur with EPA's proposal to (1) continue
using an estimate of 14 years as the appropriate number of life years
saved when age specific distributions of avoided premature mortality
incidences are not available and (2) continue using age-specific
numbers of life years when age specific distributions of avoided
premature mortality incidences are available?
Charge #8: Tax Interaction Effects. Does the Council consider the
scope and content of the Appendix B text on tax interaction effects
valid and appropriate given the intended purpose of the 812
Prospective? If not, does the Council have specific recommendations for
revisions to the scope and/or substance of the draft report language?
Charge #9: Income Adjustments to WTP. Does the Council concur with
the specification of the sensitivity analysis examining income
adjustment to WTP currently incorporated in the draft report, and with
EPA's specific proposal to include this sensitivity analysis in
Appendix H of the first prospective analysis? If not, does the Council
have specific recommendations for revisions to the specification of the
sensitivity analysis and/or recommendations regarding the merits of
incorporating any analysis and discussion of income adjustments to WTP
in the first prospective analysis?
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (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), US 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 Section 812 Prospective Study: Report to
Congress, please contact Mr. James DeMocker, Office of Policy Analysis
and Review (OPAR) (Mail Code 6103), US 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, rosters of participants, or
copies of the draft reports, please contact Ms. Diana L. Pozun,
Management Assistant to the Council, Science Advisory Board (1400),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC 20460, Tel. (202)
260-8432; FAX (202) 260-7118; or via e-mail: <[email protected]>. To
discuss technical or logistical aspects of the Council review process
or to submit written comments, please contact Dr. Angela Nugent,
Designated Federal Officer to the Council, at the address above or at
Tel. (202) 260-4126; FAX (202) 260-7118, or via e-mail:
<[email protected]>.
(c) Providing Public Comments to the SAB--To request time to
provide brief oral comments at the meeting, please contact Ms. Diana L.
Pozun in writing by mail, FAX or E-Mail at the addresses given above no
later than 12 noon by Tuesday, July 6, 1999. Please provide 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 Ms. Pozun at the above address
prior to the meeting date.
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 Dr. Nugent at least five
business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can
be made.
Dated: June 17, 1999.
A. Robert Flaak,
Acting Staff Director, Science Advisory Board.
[FR Doc. 99-15978 Filed 6-22-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P