Science Advisory Board; Notice of Public Meetings

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