[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 127 (Monday, July 2, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34924-34928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16569]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7005-7]


EPA 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 several committees (Executive Committee 
(EC), Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC), Clean Air 
Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), Environmental Health Committee

[[Page 34925]]

(EHC)/Integrated Human Exposure Committee (IHEC) joint meeting, and 
Arsenic Rule Benefits Review Panel) of the EPA Science Advisory Board 
(SAB) will meet on the dates and times noted below. All times noted are 
Eastern Standard Time. The meetings are open to the public, however, 
seating is limited and available on a first come basis.

1. Executive Committee--July 17-18, 2001

    The US EPA Science Advisory Board's (SAB's) Executive Committee 
will meet on Tuesday and Wednesday, July 17-18, 2001 from 8:30 am to 
5:00 pm on July 17 and 8:30 to 12:00 noon on July 18. The meeting will 
be held in the USEPA, National Risk Management Research Laboratory 
(NRMRL), 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268. 
Telephone: (513) 569-7418.
    Purpose of the Meeting--At this meeting, the Executive Committee 
expects to review the following draft reports prepared by its 
Committees or subcommittees. Please check with SAB Staff (see below) 
prior to the meeting to determine the final list of review issues.
    (a) Executive Committee (EC) of the EPA Science Advisory Board 
(SAB) ``Improving Science-Based Environmental Stakeholder Processes; an 
SAB Commentary''
    (b) Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards Subcommittee 
(STAA) of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) ``Recommendations on the 
FY2000 Scientific and Technological Achievement Award Nominations'' 
(see 66 Federal Register 19933, dated April 18, 2001 for details).
    (c) Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards Subcommittee 
(STAA) of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) ``The Process of the 
Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards; An SAB Commentary'' 
(see 66 Federal Register 19933, dated April 18, 2001 for details).
    The SAB may review other reports if they are available in time. 
Additional issues on the agenda include: (a) activities of the various 
SAB committees; (b) consideration of Cumulative Risk issues; (c) 
addressing concerns raised about activities during the course of 
preparing reports; (d) the role of social science in SAB activities; 
and (e) project planning for FY2002.
    Charge to the Executive Committee--The focus of the Executive 
Committee review of draft reports prepared by its Committees or 
subcommittees is normally limited to the following issues: (a) Does the 
draft report adequately responded to the questions posed in the Charge? 
(b) Are the statements and/or responses in the draft report clear? (c) 
Are there any errors of fact in the draft report?
    In accord with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the 
public and the Agency are invited to submit written comments on these 
three questions. Submissions should be received by July 13, 2001 by Ms. 
Diana Pozun, EPA Science Advisory Board, Mail Code 1400A, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460. (Telephone (202) 564-4544, FAX (202) 501-0582; or 
via e-mail at [email protected]). Submission by e-mail to Ms. Pozun 
will maximize the time available for review by the Executive Committee.
    The SAB will have a brief period available for applicable public 
comment. Anyone wishing to make oral comments on the three focus 
questions above, and that are not duplicative of previously submitted 
written comments, should contact the Designated Federal Officer for the 
Executive Committee, Dr. Donald G. Barnes (Tel: 202-564-4533; Fax: 202-
501-0323; USEPA Science Advisory Board, Mail Code 1400A, USEPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; [email protected]) by July 
10, 2001. See below for more information on providing comments.
    Availability of Materials--The draft meeting agenda and drafts of 
any reports that will be reviewed at the meeting will be available to 
the public on the SAB website (http://www.epa.gov/sab) by close-of-
business on July 6, 2001.
    For Further Information--Any member of the public wishing further 
information concerning this meeting should contact Dr. Donald G. 
Barnes, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the Executive Committee at 
US EPA Science Advisory Board (1400A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20460; phone (202) 564-4533; fax (202) 501-0323; or via 
e-mail at [email protected].

2. Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC)--July 18-20, 
2001

    The Ecological Processes and Effects Committee of the US EPA 
Science Advisory Board (SAB), will meet on Wednesday through Friday, 
July 18-20, 2001 at The Westin Cincinnati, 21 East 5th Street, 
Cincinnati, OH, telephone 513-621-7700. The meeting will begin at 12:30 
p.m. on July 18 and adjourn no later than noon on July 20.
    Purpose of the Meeting--(a) Review the draft Agency document, 
Planning for Ecological Risk Assessment: Developing Management 
Objectives: The draft document, developed by a technical panel of the 
EPA Risk Assessment Forum, is designed to help decision-makers work 
with risk assessors, stakeholders, and other analysts to plan for 
ecological risk assessments that will effectively inform the decisions 
they need to make. The document presents the three steps of Planning: 
Identify Decision Context, Develop Objectives, and Identify Information 
Needs. It also describes how planning fits into the overall risk-
assessment process and provides several case examples showing how the 
process might be applied in EPA programs.
    Charge to the Panel: The Agency has asked the SAB to respond to the 
following questions:
    (1) The primary audience for the guidance document is EPA risk 
managers, but also should be useful to managers and decisionmakers 
outside the Agency. Overall, does the SAB think this guidance may be 
useful and help decisionmakers improve the planning of ecological risk 
assessments? What additional principles should be included or excluded 
in the document?
    (2) Are the steps in setting management objectives clear and is the 
overall process logical? Are the key concepts well defined?
    (3) Is the depth of discussion and level of technical detail 
appropriate? If not, how would the SAB change it?
    (4) Discuss the flexibility afforded by the guidance and its 
applicability to different situations (e.g., site-specific, national 
level, etc. )?
    (5) Comment on the effectiveness of the examples, figures, tables, 
and text boxes.
    (b) Review the Southeastern Ecological Framework (SEF): EPA Region 
4, working with the University of Florida, has developed the 
Southeastern Ecological Framework, a Geographic Information System 
(GIS)-based approach for identifying a network of important regional 
ecological hubs and ``greenways'' corridors that connect them 
throughout the 8-state region. The SEF builds on the approach developed 
in Florida for identification of a network of greenways (the Florida 
Ecological Network). The hubs of the framework are typically land areas 
with high habitat diversity, little forest fragmentation, and greater 
than 5,000 acres in size. The corridors of the framework connect the 
hubs and typically follow natural land forms and water features, 
allowing ecosystem processes to operate at a larger scale. The model 
depicts a functioning whole system that integrates ecosystem processes 
across many scales by maintaining connectivity among the parts. The SEF 
is designed to be a planning tool that can be used by

[[Page 34926]]

anyone interested in protecting water quality, species habitat, 
important ecological areas, quality of life and other important natural 
features by preserving connectivity between those natural areas.
    Charge to the Panel: The Agency has asked the SAB to respond to the 
following questions:
    (1) Is the Florida Ecological Network approach consistent with 
modeling an ecological framework for a region?
    (2) Are the data layers used in developing the Southeastern 
Ecological Framework sufficient to indicate ecological integrity?
    (3) Would a similar model or approach be applicable for developing 
a framework for the U.S.?
    (4) Would additional or alternate data layers be needed for a 
national framework?
    (5) What modification might be made to increase the utility of the 
approach as a decision support tool in meeting EPA's program activities 
and Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goals?
    (6) Discuss what linkages between various indicators and EPA 
programs or control authorities may help to elevate the use of SEF as a 
decision support tool?
    Availability of Review Materials: A copy of the draft document, 
Planning for Ecological Risk Assessment: Developing Management 
Objectives is available from Ms. Marilyn Brower, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum Staff (8601D), 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 564-3363, 
or e-mail at [email protected]. Review materials describing the 
Southeastern Ecological Framework are available from Dr. Cory Berish, 
Chief of the Planning and Analysis Branch, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, 
SW., Atlanta, GA 30303-8960, telephone (404) 562-8276, or e-mail at 
[email protected].
    For Further Information--Any member of the public wishing further 
information concerning this meeting or wishing to submit brief oral 
comments (10 minutes or less) must contact Ms. Stephanie Sanzone, 
Designated Federal Officer, EPA Science Advisory Board (1400A), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 564-4561; FAX (202) 501-0582; or 
via e-mail at [email protected]. Requests for oral comments 
must be in writing (e-mail, fax or mail) and received by Ms. Sanzone no 
later than noon Eastern Standard Time on July 11, 2001.

3. Environmental Health Committee and the Integrated Human Exposure 
Committee (EHC/IHEC)--Joint Meeting--July 19-20, 2001

    The Environmental Health Committee and the Integrated Human 
Exposure Committee (EHC/IHEC) of the US EPA Science Advisory Board 
(SAB), will meet jointly on Thursday and Friday, July 19-20, 2001 at 
The Westin Cincinnati, 21 East 5th Street, Cincinnati, OH, telephone 
513-621-7700. The meeting will begin 9 am Eastern Standard Time on July 
19, and adjourn no later than 5 pm on July 20.
    Purpose of the Meeting--EPA is currently developing an indoor air 
toxics strategy to reduce risks from toxic air pollutants indoors, 
using non-regulatory, voluntary actions. To help focus Agency efforts 
on the most substantial risks, the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air 
(ORIA) developed a draft strategy presenting an ``order-of-magnitude,'' 
screening-level ranking and selection of key air toxics indoors. The 
ranking analysis used a methodology similar to that used to select key 
pollutants for the National Air Toxics Program/Urban Air Toxics 
Strategy, as presented in the Technical Support Document for that 
program (for more details, please see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/urban/urbanpg.html).
    Charge to the Committee--The Charge asks the EHC/IHEC to respond to 
the following four primary questions:
    (a) Is the overall methodology suitable for the purposes of the 
ranking analysis (i.e., development of an ``order-of-magnitude,'' 
screening-level ranking and selection of key air toxics indoors)?
    (b) Are the criteria used to select the monitoring studies for the 
analysis appropriate? Are the studies chosen for the ranking analysis 
suitable, and are there other studies that you believe should be 
included in this analysis? Were the methods used to select and 
statistically analyze the data within the studies useful to the 
analysis?
    (c) Is the methodology for selection of the ``risk-based 
concentrations'' (based on that presented in the Technical Support 
Document for the National Air Toxics Program/Urban Air Toxics Strategy) 
useful in the context of this analysis?
    (d) How well are adequacy, limitations, and uncertainties of the 
analysis described and addressed, including:
    (1) Incomplete data on indoor concentrations and hazard/risk 
indices.
    (2) Difficulties in determining the representativeness/accuracy of 
the ``typical'' levels indoors.
    (3) The use of short-term monitoring data to represent chronic 
exposure periods.
    (4) Issues related to the age of the data.
    (5) Variations in the methods used by the various agencies to 
arrive at the health indices, which are the basis for the ``risk-based 
concentrations?''
    Availability of Review Materials: The principal review document is 
available via request to Ms. Mary Clark, phone (202) 564-9348, or by 
email to [email protected].
    For Further Information--Any member of the public wishing further 
information concerning this meeting or wishing to submit brief oral 
comments (10 minutes or less) must contact Samuel Rondberg, Designated 
Federal Officer, EPA Science Advisory Board (1400A), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; 
telephone (301) 812-2560, FAX (410) 286-2689; or via e-mail at 
[email protected]. Requests for oral comments must be in writing (e-
mail, fax or mail) and received by Mr. Rondberg no later than noon 
(EDT) on July 13, 2001.

4. The Arsenic Rule Benefits Review Panel (ARBRP)--July 19-20, 2001

    The Arsenic Rule Benefits Review Panel (ARBRP) of the US EPA 
Science Advisory Board, will meet in the Ronald Reagan Building/
International Trade Center Conference Center (Polaris Suite), 1300 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20005. The meeting will begin 
by 8:30 a.m. and adjourn no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on 
both days. The meeting is open to the public, however, seating is 
limited and available on a first come basis.
    Purpose of the Meeting--The Panel will meet to review the Agency's 
report Arsenic in Drinking Water Rule Economic Analysis (EPA 815-R-00-
026; December 2000). A report will be prepared and delivered to the EPA 
Administrator as a result of the review.
    Background--Studies have linked long-term exposure to arsenic in 
drinking water to cancer of the bladder, lungs, skin, kidney, nasal 
passages, liver, and prostate. Non-cancer effects associated with 
arsenic ingestion include effects to the cardiovascular, pulmonary, 
immunological, neurological, and endocrine (e.g., diabetes) systems. 
The current standard of 50 ppb was set by EPA in 1975, based on a 
Public Health Service standard originally established in 1942. A March 
1999 report by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the 
current standard does not achieve EPA's goal of

[[Page 34927]]

protecting public health and should be lowered as soon as possible.
    The Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, 1996, (SDWA) requires EPA 
to revise the existing 50 parts per billion (ppb) arsenic standard. In 
response to this mandate, the Agency published a standard of 10 ppb to 
protect consumers against the effects of long-term, chronic exposure to 
arsenic in drinking water on January 22, 2001. The rule is significant 
in that it is the second drinking water regulation for which EPA has 
used the discretionary authority under section 1412(b)(6) of the SDWA 
to set the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) higher than the technically 
feasible level, which is 3 ppb for arsenic--based on a determination 
that the costs would not justify the benefits at this level. The 
January 22, 2001 arsenic rule is based on the conclusion that a 10 ppb 
MCL maximizes health risk reduction at a cost justified by the 
benefits.
    The January 22, 2001 rule will apply to all 54,000 community water 
systems and requires compliance by 2006. A community water system is a 
system that serves 15 locations or 25 residents year-round, and 
includes most cities and towns, apartments, and mobile home parks with 
their own water supplies. EPA estimates that roughly five percent, or 
3000, of the community water systems, serving 11 million people, will 
have to take corrective action to lower the current levels of arsenic 
in their drinking water. The new standard will also apply to 20,000 
``non-community'' water systems that serve at least 25 of the same 
people more than six months of the year, such as schools, churches, 
nursing homes, and factories. EPA estimates that five percent, or 
1,100, of these water systems, serving approximately 2 million people, 
will need to take measures to comply with the January 22, 2001 rule. Of 
all of the affected systems, 97 percent are small systems that serve 
fewer than 10,000 people each.
    Following the January 22, 2001 Federal Register promulgation of the 
arsenic rule, a number of issues were raised to EPA by States, public 
water systems, and others regarding the adequacy of science and the 
basis for national economic analyses informing decisions about the 
rule. Because of the importance of the arsenic rule and the national 
debate surrounding it related to the science and economic analyses that 
inform the decision, EPA's Administrator publicly announced on March 
20, 2001, that the Agency would take additional steps to reassess the 
scientific and economic issues associated with this rule, to gather 
more information, and to seek further public input on each of these 
important issues.
    Key stakeholder concerns on the benefits component of the economic 
analysis include the following issues: (1) The timing of health 
benefits accrual (latency); (2) the use of the Value of Statistical 
Life as a measure of health benefits; (3) the use of alternative 
methodologies for benefits estimation; (4) how the Agency considered 
non-quantifiable benefits in its regulatory decision-making process; 
(5) the analysis of incremental costs and benefits; and (6) the 
Agency's assumption that health risk reduction benefits will begin to 
accrue at the same time costs begin to accrue.
    Charge to the Committee--The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) will 
convene a panel of nationally recognized technical experts to review 
the methods for estimating the benefits associated with the final 
arsenic in drinking water rule. The Panel has been asked to review the 
Agency's analysis of quantified and unquantified benefits associated 
with the arsenic drinking water rule (see 66 FR 6976-7066, dated 
January 22, 2001, www.epa.gov/safewater/ars/arsenic_finalrule.htm), 
specifically, the Agency asks the SAB to evaluate whether the 
components, methodology, criteria and estimates reflected in EPA's 
economic analysis (Arsenic in Drinking Water Rule Economic Analysis; 
EPA 815-R-00-26, 2001), are reasonable and appropriate in light of: (1) 
The EPA Science Advisory Board's (SAB) benefits transfer report (EPA-
SAB-EEAC-00-013, July 2000, entitled An SAB Report on EPA's White Paper 
Valuing the Benefits of Fatal Cancer Risk Reductions--available on the 
SAB Website at www.epa.gov/sab/eeacf013.pdf), (2) EPA's Guidelines for 
Preparing Economic Analyses (EPA 240-R-00-003; September 2000; 
www.epa.gov/economics), (3) relevant requirements of the Safe Drinking 
Water Act (SDWA--www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwa/sdwa.htm), (4) the National 
Drinking Water Advisory Council recommendations to EPA on benefits 
(Benefits Working Group Report to the National Drinking Water Advisory 
Council; unpublished, October 29, 1998), and (5) recent literature. As 
part of a general review, consideration should be given to the 
following issues:
    (a) How should total benefits and costs and incremental benefits 
and costs be addressed in analyzing regulatory alternatives to ensure 
appropriate consideration by decision makers and the public?
    (b) How should latency be addressed in the benefits estimates when 
existing literature does not provide specific quantitative estimates of 
latency periods associated with exposure to arsenic in drinking water?
    (c) Should reduction/elimination of exposure be evaluated as a 
separate benefits category, in addition to or in conjunction with 
mortality and morbidity reduction?
    (d) How should health endpoints (other than bladder and lung 
cancer) be addressed in the analysis, when [existing] literature does 
not provide specific quantification, to ensure appropriate 
consideration by decision makers and the public?
    (e) How should uncertainties be addressed in the analysis to ensure 
appropriate consideration by decision makers and the public?
    In order to ensure that the SAB's recommendations are fully 
considered in decision making, the Agency has asked for a report to be 
made available to the Administrator in August 2001 to coincide with the 
findings and recommendations from independent reviews of the health 
effects by the National Academy of Sciences and costs by the National 
Drinking Water Advisory Council.
    For Further Information--Any member of the public wishing further 
information concerning this meeting should contact Mr. Thomas O. 
Miller, Designated Federal Officer, EPA Science Advisory Board, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (1400A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 564-4558; FAX (202) 501-0582; or 
via e-mail at [email protected]. For a copy of the draft meeting 
agenda, please contact (primary) Ms. Wanda Fields, Management Assistant 
at (202) 564-4539, or by FAX at (202) 501-0582; or (alternate) Ms. 
Rhonda Fortson, Management Assistant at (202) 564-4563 or by FAX at 
(202) 501-0582 or via e-mail at [email protected].
    Materials that are the subject of this review are available on the 
EPA Website as noted in the section on ``Charge to the Committee'' 
above or from Ms. Rebecca K Allen, US EPA, Office of Water (OW)(MS 
4607), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: (202) 
260-6667 or via e-mail at [email protected].
    Public Oral or Written Comments--Members of the public who wish to 
make a brief oral presentation (5 minutes or less per person or 
organization, depending on the number of requests) to the Panel must 
contact Mr. Miller in writing (by letter or by fax--see contact 
information above) no later than 12 noon Eastern Standard Time, Monday, 
July 16, 2001 in order to be included on the Agenda. The request

[[Page 34928]]

should identify the name of the individual who will make the 
presentation, the organization (if any) they will represent, any 
requirements for audio visual equipment (e.g., overhead projector, 35mm 
projector, chalkboard, etc), and at least 35 copies of an outline of 
the issues to be addressed or the presentation itself. See below for 
more information on providing written or oral comments.

5. Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)--July 23-24, 
2001

    The Particulate Matter Review Panel of the Clean Air Scientific 
Advisory Committee (CASAC) of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) will 
meet on Monday and Tuesday, July 23-24, 2001 in the Main Auditorium, US 
Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Research Center, Route 54 
and Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC. The meeting will begin 
at 8:30 am and end no later than 5:30 pm on each day.
    Purpose of the Meeting: (a) The CASAC PM Review Panel will conduct 
a peer review of the EPA Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter 
(Second External Review Draft) prepared by EPA's National Center for 
Environmental Assessment (NCEA); and (b) The CASAC PM Review Panel will 
also conduct a Consultation with the EPA's Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) on the preliminary draft of OAQPS's 
Staff Paper for particulate matter, Review of the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of 
Scientific and Technical Information, and the draft Particulate Matter 
NAAQS Risk Analysis Scoping Plan.
    Availability of Review Materials: (a) EPA Air Quality Criteria for 
Particulate Matter (Second External Review Draft)--This document 
assesses the latest available scientific information on the effects of 
airborne particulate matter (PM) on human health and welfare. To obtain 
a copy of the EPA Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter (Second 
External Review Draft), or to obtain further information concerning 
this document, please refer to 66 FR 18929, April 12, 2001. (b) Review 
of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: 
Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information and the Draft 
Particulate Matter NAAQS Risk Analysis Scoping Plan--These documents 
have both been released for comment. To obtain copies or further 
information, please refer to 66 FR 32621, dated June 15, 2001.
    For Further Information--Members of the public desiring additional 
information about the meeting should contact Mr. Robert Flaak, 
Designated Federal Officer, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, US 
EPA Science Advisory Board (1400A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20460 (FedEx address: US EPA SAB, Suite 6450, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20004); telephone/voice mail at 
(202) 564-4546; fax at (202) 501-0582; or via e-mail at 
[email protected]. The draft agenda will be available approximately 
two weeks prior to the meetings on the SAB website (http://www.epa.gov/sab) or from Ms. Rhonda Fortson, Management Assistant, at (202) 564-
4563; FAX: (202) 501-0582; or e-mail at: [email protected].
    Public Oral or Written Comments--Members of the public who wish to 
make a brief oral presentation at the meeting must contact Mr. Flaak in 
writing (by letter, fax, or e-mail--see previously stated information) 
no later than 12 noon Eastern Standard Time, Friday, July 13, 2001 in 
order to be included on the Agenda. For this meeting, we have allocated 
a total of 2.5 hours for public comments to be divided equally among 
those requesting speaking time, with a maximum of ten minutes per 
speaker or organization. See below for more information on providing 
written or oral comments. Written comments of any length will be 
accepted up until the date of the meeting.

Providing Oral or Written Comments at SAB Meetings

    It is the policy of the EPA Science Advisory Board to accept 
written public comments of any length, and to accommodate oral public 
comments whenever possible (unless otherwise stated). The EPA Science 
Advisory Board expects that public statements presented at its meetings 
will not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written 
statements.
    Oral Comments: In general, each individual or group requesting an 
oral presentation at a face-to-face meeting will be limited to a total 
time of ten minutes (unless otherwise stated above). For teleconference 
meetings, opportunities for oral comment will usually be limited to no 
more than three minutes per speaker and no more than fifteen minutes 
total. Deadlines for getting on the public speaker list for a meeting 
are given above. Speakers should bring at least 35 copies of their 
comments and presentation slides for distribution to the reviewers and 
public at the meeting.
    Written Comments: Although the SAB accepts written comments until 
the date of the meeting (unless otherwise stated), written comments 
should be received in the SAB Staff Office at least one week prior to 
the meeting date so that the comments may be made available to the 
committee for their consideration. Comments should be supplied to the 
appropriate DFO at the address/contact information noted above in the 
following formats: One hard copy with original signature, and one 
electronic copy via e-mail (acceptable file format: WordPerfect, Word, 
or Rich Text files (in IBM-PC/Windows 95/98 format). Those providing 
written comments and who attend the meeting are also asked to bring 25 
copies of their comments for public distribution.
    General Information--Additional information concerning the EPA 
Science Advisory Board, its structure, function, and composition, may 
be found on the SAB Website (http://www.epa.gov/sab) and in The FY2000 
Annual Report of the Staff Director which is available from the SAB 
Publications Staff at (202) 564-4533 or via fax at (202) 501-0256. 
Committee rosters, draft Agendas and meeting calendars are also located 
on our website.
    Meeting Access--Individuals requiring special accommodation at this 
meeting, including wheelchair access to the conference room, should 
contact the appropriate DFO at least five business days prior to the 
meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Dated: June 27, 2001.
Donald G. Barnes,
Staff Director, EPA Science Advisory Board.
[FR Doc. 01-16569 Filed 6-29-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P