[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7531-7534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-3703]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL -7452-7]


Science Advisory Board; Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance 
Analysis; Request for Nominations for Additional Expertise for the 
Special Council Panel for the Review of the Third 812 Analysis and the 
Council's Two Subcommittees, the Air Quality Modeling Subcommittee and 
the Health and Ecological Effects Subcommittee

    1. Action: Notice; request for nominations to add additional 
expertise to the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis 
(Council) for a Special Council Panel for the Review of the Third 812 
Analysis and request for nominations for membership on the Council's 
two subcommittees, the Air Quality Modeling Subcommittee and the Health 
and Ecological Effects Subcommittee (HEES). The Council is a separately 
chartered federal advisory committee, housed administratively in the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board.
    2. Summary: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or 
Agency) Science Advisory Board is requesting nominations to: (a) add 
expertise to the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis 
(Council) for a Special Council Panel for the Review of the Third 812 
Analysis (Special Council Panel); (b) the Council's Air Quality 
Modeling Subcommittee (AQMS); and (c) the Council's Health and 
Ecological Effects Subcommittee (HEES).
    The SAB was established to provide independent scientific and 
technical advice, consultation, and recommendations to the EPA 
Administrator on the technical basis for Agency positions and 
regulations. The Council provides scientific advice on any analysis 
required under section 312 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) of the impacts of 
the Clean Air Act (CAA) on the public health, economy, and environment 
of the United States and is a separately chartered Federal advisory 
committee Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended (5 U.S.C. 
App.). The AQMS of the Council provides expertise on air quality 
modeling used in such analysis. The HEES of the Council provides advice 
on assessments of health and ecological effects used in such analyses. 
The AQMS and the HEES will report to the Administrator of EPA through 
the Council. The Special Council Panel will comprise members of the 
Council, appointed by the Administrator, and additional experts needed 
for the Review of the Third 812 Analysis. Members of the Special 
Council Panel, AQMS, and HEES will provide advice to the Agency on the 
Third 812 Analysis over a two-year period. Over that period, the 
Special Council Panel for the Review of the Third 812 Analysis, AQMS, 
and HEES will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate 
SAB procedural policies, including the SAB process for panel formation 
described in the Overview of the Panel Formation Process at the 
Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board, which can found 
on the SAB's website at: http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/ec02010.pdf. Those 
selected to serve on the Council, AQMS, and HEES will review the draft 
materials identified in this notice and respond to the charge questions 
provided below.
    3. Background: The Agency is seeking the Council's advice in 
developing the third in a series of statutorily mandated comprehensive 
analyses of the total costs and total benefits of programs implemented 
pursuant to the Clean Air Act. Section 812 of the Clean Air Act 
requires the EPA to periodically assess the effects of the 1990 Clean 
Air Act Amendments on the ``public health, economy and the environment 
of the United States'' and to report the findings and results of the 
assessments to Congress. Section 812 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec.  7612) also specifically directed the EPA 
Administrator to establish the Council to: (a) Review data to be used 
for any analysis required under section 312 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 
of the impacts of the Clean Air Act (CAA) on the public health, 
economy, and environment of the United States, and make recommendations 
on its use; (b) review the methodology used to analyze such data and 
make recommendations on the use of such methodology; and (c) prior to 
the issuance of a report to Congress required under section 312 of the 
CAA, review the findings of the report and make recommendations 
concerning the validity and utility of such findings.
    EPA has to date completed two reports to Congress [The Benefits and 
Costs of the Clean Air Act: 1970 to 1990 (published, 1997, and on the 
EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/oar/sect812/copy.html) and The 
Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1990 to 2010 (published 1999), 
and on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/1990-2010/fullrept.pdf] and received the advice of the Council on them in 
multiple reports. EPA also sought Council advice on a draft Analytical 
Plan (June 2001) for a third analysis, and received advice on the plan 
from the Council in September 2001, Review of the Draft Analytical Plan 
for EPA's Second Prospective Analysis--Benefits and Costs of the Clean 
Air Act 1990-2020 (EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-01-004, on the SAB Web site at 
http://www.epa.gov/science1/pdf/councila01004.pdf).
    EPA's work pursuant to the draft Analytical Plan (June 2001) and 
receipt of SAB Council advice was suspended pending resolution of three 
key issues:
    (a) National Academy of Sciences (NAS) review of EPA air pollution 
benefits methods. Shortly after completion of the September 2001 SAB 
Council review of the June 2001 Analytical Plan, a panel of the 
National Academy of Sciences initiated development of their 
statutorily-mandated report evaluating EPA's methods for conducting air 
pollution reduction benefits analysis. The Agency recognized that the 
pending NAS report would have substantial effects on the selection of 
methods and assumptions in the third analysis, and suspended initiation 
of analytical work until the NAS review was completed. The NAS report, 
Estimating the Public Health Benefits of Proposed Air Pollution 
Regulations (on the web at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10511.html), was 
completed in October 2002.
    The Agency notes that the NAS report recommends numerous changes to 
EPA methods that are relevant for the third 812 analysis. Of particular 
importance, the NAS recommends that EPA develop and apply significantly 
enhanced uncertainty analysis methods, including the use of 
probabilistic specifications for important but uncertain or highly 
variable factors. The NAS panel, however, did not provide extensive 
specific advice regarding the appropriate methods or assumptions to 
apply in air pollution benefits analyses. The Agency proposes to seek 
Council advice to evaluate proposals for methodological changes 
pursuant to SAB and NAS advice. One specific change will be an 
additional analysis recommended by the NAS. This

[[Page 7532]]

analysis, referred to as the ``Fixed Current Conditions Analysis,'' is 
intended to gauge baseline aggregate uncertainty embedded in the 
benefits modeling system.
    (b) Base emissions inventory selection. The Agency decided to wait 
for the availability of the upcoming 1999 National Emissions Inventory 
(NEI) rather than the currently available 1996 National Emissions 
Inventory because of shortcomings in the current emission inventories, 
including several deficiencies identified by the SAB Council. The 1999 
NEI has now been further delayed, and is not expected to be available 
for use in the third analysis until Summer 2003.
    The Agency therefore proposes to use the time between now and 
Summer 2003, when the 1999 NEI will be available, to configure and 
begin implementing key supplemental analyses, included in the original 
Analytical plan. These supplemental analyses include: (i) A Title VI 
re-analysis; (ii) a Hazardous Air Pollutant Case Study; and (iii) an 
Ecological Service Flow Case Study. Specific proposals for design and 
implementation of these supplemental analyses would be incorporated in 
the revised Analytical Plan and submitted for review by the SAB 
Council.
    (c) Air quality model selection. The SAB Council strongly 
encouraged use of a comprehensive and integrated modeling system, such 
as the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model currently under 
development. The Agency also decided to defer initiation of emissions 
inventory development until air quality model evaluations for the key 
competing models [especially CMAQ versus the Regulatory Modeling System 
for Aerosols and Deposition (REMSAD) for modeling of particulate matter 
and CMAQ versus the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions 
(CAMx) for ozone modeling) were completed to ensure appropriate 
specification of the emission inventories used as inputs to the air 
quality models that will be selected for the study.
    The Agency is seeking review by the Council Special Panel and its 
two subcommittees of three documents in the Spring 2003 that will 
assist the Agency in developing the third 812 analysis, which will be 
reviewed by the Council Special Panel and its two subcommittees in 
draft and final form in Fiscal Year 2004. The three documents to be 
reviewed in the Spring of 2003 include: (a) A revised Analytical Plan; 
(b) a new EPA meta-analysis for the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL), 
which has been developed in response, in part, to SAB Council advice 
for an updated and refined VSL estimate for use in third analysis; and 
(c) a draft strategic plan for development and implementation of 
probabilistic uncertainty methods to be applied more generally in EPA 
benefit-cost analyses. This strategic plan is expected to include 
proposed processes for (i) probability-based uncertainty analysis and 
(ii) expert elicitation to configure probability distributions for key 
uncertain and/or variable factors where data are limited and/or 
function specification would likely be controversial.
    4. EPA Request for and Proposed Charge to the Council, HEES, and 
AQMS. Specific and detailed charge questions are still under 
development, particularly since EPA is still developing methodological 
options for implementation of NAS advice, especially related to 
probabilistic uncertainty analysis. However, the particular analytical 
elements for which new or updated SAB Council advice is expected to be 
sought include the following:
    (a) Selection of upcoming 1999 National Emissions Inventory
    (b) Selection of REMSAD version 7.3 for PM and CAMx for ozone air 
quality modeling
    (c) Selection of specific Computable General Equilibrium model for 
estimation of general equilibrium effects (proposed model choice still 
pending)
    (d) Selection of exposure modeling methodology
    (e) Methods for quantification of compliance cost uncertainty
    (f) Methods for quantification of emission inventory uncertainty
    (g) Refinements to population characteristics for health effect 
estimation, including:
    (i) Updated baseline incidence and prevalence rates for morbidity 
and mortality
    (ii) Adjustments to account for differences in study and applied 
populations
    (iii) Accounting for population exposure variability
    (iv) Population subgroup differentiation in estimating incidence 
changes
    (v) Development of regional-scale population projections based on 
Woods and Poole Economics, Incorporated, 2001 projections
    (h) Updated and expanded morbidity endpoint treatments, including:
    (i) Revised asthma severity baseline using new National Health 
Interview Survey data
    (ii) Expansion of asthma age range
    (iii) Emergency room visits in children age 0 to 18
    (iv) Non-fatal heart attacks in adults over 30
    (v) Hospital admissions for all cardiovascular causes
    (vi) Hospital admissions for all respiratory causes in children 
under age 2
    (vii) Revisions to hospital admissions studies used to estimate 
changes in pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and total 
cardiovascular
    (viii) Asthma hospital admissions in children age 6 to 13
    (ix) Ozone-related school loss days
    (x) Additional calculations to extrapolate study population age 
ranges for application to all child age range for various 
concentration-response functions
    (xi) Possible expert elicitation regarding methods to transfer non-
U.S. data on doctor visits and medication usage
    (xii) Possible expert elicitation regarding revision to the current 
triangular distribution for the chronic bronchitis severity adjustment 
factor
    (i) Updated treatments for particulate matter mortality, including:
    (i) A proposed probability-based structure for cessation lags
    (ii) Alternative mortality concentration-response functions 
(including possible expert elicitation regarding appropriate weights 
for alternative particulate matter cohort studies for the purpose of 
pooling)
    (iii) Alternative PM mortality threshold models (including possible 
expert elicitation regarding choice and refitting of alternative 
threshold concentration-response curves)
    (iv) Alternative particulate matter causality assumptions
    (v) Relative toxicity of particulate matter components
    (j) Updated and new valuation coefficients (or coefficient 
distributions) for the full range of morbidity and for mortality 
endpoints, including:
    (i) Development of methods to estimate Quality Adjusted Life Year 
values for air pollution-related outcomes
    (ii) Review of EPA's pending meta-analysis for Value of a 
Statistical Life
    (iii) Review of the welfare economics components of EPA's analyses 
including not only efficiency considerations, but distributional 
consequences of alternative scenarios
    (k) Expanded uncertainty analysis, including:
    (i) Development of preliminary covariance matrices followed by 
possible expert elicitation for assessment and refinement
    (ii) Development of probability distributions for key uncertain 
and/or

[[Page 7533]]

variable factors (in many cases, incorporating subjective judgments 
through various methods such as Bayesian approaches or expert 
elicitation)
    (iii) Configuration of sensitivity tests to evaluate alternative 
distributions for key factors
    (iv) Configuration of the side bar ``Fixed Current Conditions 
Analysis'' represented in the EPA benefit-cost modeling system
    (v) Configuration of multi-factor sensitivity tests to evaluate the 
relative significance and interaction effects of key uncertain or 
variable factors
    5. SAB Request for Nominations: The EPA SAB is requesting 
nominations of individuals who are recognized, national-level experts 
in one or more of the following disciplines necessary to contribute to 
the charge questions to be addressed by the Special Council Panel for 
the Review of the Third 812 Analysis, AQMS, or HEES:
    (a) Emissions estimation (AQMS and the Special Council Panel)
    (b) Air quality modeling (AQMS and the Special Council Panel)
    (c) Exposure modeling related to air pollution (AQMS, HEES)
    (d) Health effects (HEES and the Special Council Panel))
    (e) Human clinical studies related to air pollution (HEES and the 
Special Council Panel)
    (f) Air pollution epidemiology (HEES and the Special Council Panel)
    (g) Ecosystem effects related to air pollution (HEES and the 
Special Council Panel)
    (h) Uncertainty analysis and statistical and/or subjective 
probability (AQMS, HEES, and the Special Council Panel)
    (i) Decision theory (Special Council Panel)
    (j) Representation of expert judgment including expert elicitation 
(HEES and the Special Council Panel)
    (k) Estimation of the value of morbidity and premature mortality 
risk reduction (Special Council Panel)
    (l) Estimation of the value of ecosystem effects (Special Council 
Panel)
    (m) Welfare economics (Special Council Panel).
    6. Process and Deadline for Submitting Nominations: Any interested 
person or organization may nominate qualified individuals to add 
expertise in the above areas for the Special Council Panel for the 
Review of the Third 812 Analysis, AQMS, or HEES. Nominations should be 
submitted in electronic format through the Form for Nominating 
Individuals to Panels of the EPA Science Advisory Board provided on the 
SAB website. The form can be accessed through a link on the blue 
navigational bar on the SAB Web site, http://www.epa.gov/sab. To be 
considered, all nominations must include the information required on 
that form.
    Anyone who is unable to submit nominations in electronic format may 
contact Dr. Angela Nugent at the mailing address given at the end of 
this notice. Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later 
than 21 days after the publication date of this Federal Register 
Notice. Any questions concerning either this process or any other 
aspects notice should be directed to Dr. Nugent.
    The EPA Science Advisory Board will acknowledge receipt of the 
nomination and inform nominators of the panel selected. From the 
nominees identified by respondents to this Federal Register Notice 
(termed the ``Widecast''), SAB Staff will develop a smaller subset 
(known as the ``Short List'') for more detailed consideration. Criteria 
used by the SAB Staff in developing this Short List are given at the 
end of the following paragraph. The Short List will be posted on the 
SAB Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/sab, and will include, for each 
candidate, the nominee's name and their biosketch. Public comments will 
be accepted for 21 calendar days on the Short List. During this comment 
period, the public will be requested to provide information, analysis 
or other documentation on nominees that the SAB Staff should consider 
in evaluating candidates for the specific expertise to add to the 
Council for the Special Council Panel, for the AQMS, or the HEES.
    For the EPA SAB, a balanced review panel (i.e., committee, 
subcommittee, or panel) is characterized by inclusion of candidates who 
possess the necessary domains of knowledge, the relevant scientific 
perspectives (which, among other factors, can be influenced by work 
history and affiliation), and the collective breadth of experience to 
adequately address the charge. Public responses to the Short List 
candidates will be considered in the selection of the panel, along with 
information provided by candidates and information gathered by EPA SAB 
Staff independently on the background of each candidate (e.g., 
financial disclosure information and computer searches to evaluate a 
nominee's prior involvement with the topic under review). Specific 
criteria to be used in evaluating an individual subcommittee member 
include: (a) Scientific and/or technical expertise, knowledge, and 
experience (primary factors); (b) absence of financial conflicts of 
interest; (c) scientific credibility and impartiality; (d) availability 
and willingness to serve; and (e) ability to work constructively and 
effectively in committees.
    Short List candidates will also be required to fill-out the 
``Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government 
Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency'' (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential 
form, which is submitted by EPA SAB Members and Consultants, allows 
Government officials to determine whether there is a statutory conflict 
between that person's public responsibilities (which includes 
membership on an EPA Federal advisory committee) and private interests 
and activities, or the appearance of a lack of impartiality, as defined 
by Federal regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded from the 
following URL address: http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/epaform3110-48.pdf. 
Subcommittee members will likely be asked to attend at least one public 
face-to-face meeting and several public conference call meetings over 
the anticipated course of the advisory activity.
    The approved policy under which the EPA SAB selects review panels 
is described in a recent SAB document, EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) 
Panel Formation Process: Immediate Steps to Improve Policies and 
Procedures--An SAB Commentary (EPA-SAB-EC-COM-002-003), which can be 
found on the SAB's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/ecm02003.pdf.
    Additional information concerning the EPA Science Advisory Board, 
including its structure, function, and composition, may be found on the 
EPA SAB Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/sab; and in the EPA Science 
Advisory Board FY2001 Annual Staff Report, which is available from the 
EPA SAB Publications Staff at phone: (202) 564-4533; via fax at: (202) 
501-0256; or on the SAB Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/sab/annreport01.pdf.
    7. For Further Information--Any member of the public wishing 
further information regarding this Request for Nomination may contact 
Dr. Angela Nugent, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. EPA Science 
Advisory Board (1400A), Suite 6450C by telephone/voice mail at (202) 
564-4562, by fax at (202) 501-0323; or via e-mail at 
[email protected].


[[Page 7534]]


    Dated: February 10, 2003.
Vanessa T. Vu,
Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 03-3703 Filed 2-13-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P