[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5637-5639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2477]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6533-4]


Science Advisory Board; Notification of Public Advisory Committee 
Meeting

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, 
notice is hereby given that two committees of the USEPA Science 
Advisory Board (SAB) will meet on the dates and times noted below. All 
times noted are Eastern Time. All meetings are open to the public, 
however, seating is limited and available on a first come basis. 
Important Notice: Documents that are the subject of SAB reviews are 
normally available from the originating EPA office and are not 
available from the SAB Office--information concerning availability of 
documents from the relevant Program Office is included below.

[[Page 5638]]

1--Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC)

    The Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) of the Science 
Advisory Board (SAB), will meet on Wednesday, February 23, 2000 and 
Thursday, February 24, 2000 in the Madison Hotel, 15th and M Streets, 
NW, Washington, DC 20005; telephone number (202) 862-1600. The meeting 
will be held in the Arlington-Monticello Room and it will begin at 8:30 
am and end no later than 5:00 pm on both days.

Charge to the Committee

    The Science Advisory Board (SAB) has been asked to review and 
comment on the FY2001 Presidential Budget proposed for EPA's Office of 
Research and Development (ORD) and the overall Science and Technology 
(S&T) budget proposed for the EPA. The RSAC will consider how well the 
budget request: (a) Reflects priorities identified in the EPA and ORD 
strategic plans; (b) supports a reasonable balance in terms of 
attention to core research on multimedia capabilities and issues and to 
media-specific problem-driven topics; and (c) balances attention to 
near-term and to long-term research issues. In addition, the Committee 
will offer its advice on: (d) whether the objectives of the research 
and development program in ORD and the broader science and technology 
programs in EPA can be achieved at the resource levels requested; and 
(e) how can EPA use or improve upon the Government Performance and 
Results Act (GPRA) structure to communicate research plans, priorities, 
research requirements, and planned outcomes. A portion of the meeting 
will be devoted to development of the Committee's report.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:  Members of the public desiring additional 
information about the meeting should contact Dr. Jack Fowle, Designated 
Federal Officer, Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC), USEPA 
Science Advisory Board (1400A), Room 6450, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone/voice mail at (202) 564-4547; fax 
at (202) 501-0582; or via e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c5a3aab2a9a0ebafa4a6ae85a0b5a4eba2aab3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d0b6bfa7bcb5febab1b3bb90b5a0b1feb7bfa6">[email protected]</span></a>.> For a copy of 
the draft meeting agenda, please contact Ms. Wanda R. Fields, 
Management Assistant at (202) 564-4539 or by FAX at (202) 501-0582 or 
via e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f3959a969f9780dd84929d9792b3968392dd949c85"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0b6d626e676f78257c6a656f6a4b6e7b6a256c647d">[email protected]</span></a>>.
    Materials that are the subject of this review are available from 
Mr. Mike Feldman of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer or from 
Mr. Lek Kadeli Office of Research and Development. Mr. Feldman can be 
reached on (202) 564-6951 or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aec8cbc2cac3cfc080c3c7c5cbeecbdecf80c9c1d8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0d6b686169606c6323606466684d687d6c236a627b">[email protected]</span></a>> and Mr. 
Kadeli can be reached on (202) 564-6696 or via e-mail on 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b6ddd7d2d3dadf98dad3ddf6d3c6d798d1d9c0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="741f151011181d5a18111f341104155a131b02">[email protected]</span></a>>.

Providing Oral or Written Comments

    Members of the public who wish to make a brief oral presentation to 
the Committee must contact Dr. Fowle in writing (by letter or by fax--
see previously stated information) no later than 12 noon Eastern Time, 
Thursday, February 17, 2000 in order to be included on the Agenda. The 
request 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.

2--Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC)

    The Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC) of the 
Science Advisory Board (SAB) will meet on Friday, February 25, 2000, at 
the Madison Hotel, 15th and M Streets, NW, Washington, DC 20005; 
telephone number (202) 862-1600. The meeting will be held in the 
Arlington-Monticello Room and it will begin at 9:00 am and end no later 
than 4:00 pm.

Purpose of the Meeting

    The EEAC is meeting to consider and to provide advice and comment 
to EPA on its white paper entitled, Valuing Fatal Cancer Risk 
Reductions.

Background Information

    The draft EPA Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses 
(Guidelines) provide information and guidance on the valuation of 
reduced mortality risks. They note that one practical means to value 
changes in mortality risks is to use the Value of a Statistical Life 
(VSL) approach. The Guidelines describe a number of important factors 
to consider in applying benefit transfer approaches using VSL estimates 
from the empirical literature on wage-risk tradeoffs. The Agency 
Guidelines, recognizing the importance of this benefit category, noted 
EPA's commitment to ``continue to conduct annual reviews of the risk 
valuation literature'' and ``reconsider and revise the recommendations 
in these guidelines accordingly.'' Further, EPA committed to ``seek 
advice from the Science Advisory Board as guidance recommendations are 
revised.'' The Agency is now returning to the SAB-EEAC to obtain 
additional counsel on this subject.
    The importance of these issues was articulated in a recently 
proposed regulation to reduce human health risks from radon in drinking 
water. The proposed rule estimated the number of reduced fatal cancers 
resulting from different regulatory options. The Agency presented 
information on the economic values for the reductions in fatal cancer 
risks, along with other quantified benefits. A brief discussion of some 
of the benefit transfer issues involved in this estimation was 
published in the preamble to the proposed rule for setting standards 
for exposure to radon from drinking water sources (Federal Register, 
November 2, 1999 volume 64, Number 211, pages 59245-59378).
    In the process of responding to reviews prepared during 
deliberations on the proposed radon rule, the Agency found that the 
Guidelines lack sufficient detail on how to fully evaluate and 
characterize the different risk attributes that are central to a 
complete understanding of the benefit-cost implications of this rule. 
For example, time can pass between the point of initial exposure to a 
carcinogen, the biological manifestation or onset of cancer in the 
body, the medical diagnosis of cancer, and death caused by the cancer. 
During development of policies affecting cancer risks, suggestions have 
been made to discount the VSL estimate to account for latencies, or the 
delay in time between reduced exposure and when the cancer death would 
have occurred absent the exposure reduction (even though latency 
periods may not be known or well-understood).
    Others argued that a suitable approach for valuing benefits from 
reduced cancer risks must consider simultaneously all of the benefit 
transfer factors related to valuing cancer risks to ensure a careful 
and full treatment of benefits. There is evidence in the economics 
literature regarding many such factors (e.g., potential premiums 
ascribed to cancer risk reductions due to a higher willingness to pay 
to avoid the dread, pain and suffering, morbidity effects, and other 
features of cancer endpoints) that may suggest introducing upward 
adjustment factors which offset any potential downward adjustments 
caused by accounting for cancer latency. In addition, proponents argue 
that adjustments for the age of population at risk, income, altruism 
and other risk characteristics (e.g., controllability, voluntariness) 
can all have some potential influence on the value of a statistical 
cancer fatality (VSCF) and

[[Page 5639]]

therefore need to be reflected in the quantitative benefit assessment.
    While developing the primary benefit estimates for reduced fatal 
cancer risks in the proposed radon rule, questions arose regarding the 
implementation of adjustments for some factors, but not others. For 
example, would it ever be appropriate to adjust only for latency 
periods, and not other factors, in the valuation of reduced cancer 
deaths? The Agency is requesting the SAB's counsel to help answer this 
and related questions regarding the valuation of cancer risks.

Charge to the Committee

    The Agency has requested a review by the SAB-EEAC of its ``white 
paper'' on approaches to estimating the benefits of reduced fatal 
cancer risks. The principal questions for the Science Advisory Board 
are:
    (a) Does the white paper accurately describe the empirical economic 
literature relevant to the benefit transfer issues that ensue when 
using the VSL literature to estimate the VSCF in a benefit-cost 
analysis?
    (b) Does the white paper present the important risk and demographic 
factors that can affect benefit transfer approaches that use VSL 
estimates for VSCF?
    (c) Does the white paper accurately describe attempts in the 
economic literature to measure VSCF directly?
    (d) There are two numeric case studies of environmental cancer 
risks developed for the white paper. Each presents risk assessment 
information that forms the basis for quantifying the number of 
statistical cancer fatalities that will be reduced as a consequence of 
a hypothetical proposed environmental policy. The case studies are used 
to illustrate the outcome of using direct measures of the VSCF and 
benefit transfer adjustments to VSL estimates in order to calculate the 
VSCF.
    (1) Which of the valuation approaches applied to the case study 
designated as ALPHA are valid to use? Does this case study omit any 
credible alternative protocols for valuing reductions in fatal cancer 
risks for benefit-cost analyses of environmental programs?
    (2) Which of the valuation approaches applied to the case study 
designated as OMEGA are valid to use? Does this case study omit any 
credible alternative protocols for valuing reductions in fatal cancer 
risks for benefit-cost analyses of environmental programs?
    (e) Which economic methods illustrated with the case studies, or 
additional methods identified by the Committee under charge question 
d), serve as credible protocols for the Agency to use in representing 
quantitative data, qualitative information, and sensitivity analyses 
for the economic value of reduced fatal cancer risks reported in 
benefit-cost analyses?

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Members of the public desiring additional 
information about the meeting should contact Mr. Thomas Miller, 
Designated Federal Officer, Environmental Economics Advisory Committee 
(EEAC), USEPA Science Advisory Board (1400A), Room 6450, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone/voice mail at 
(202) 564-4558; fax at (202) 501-0582; or via e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#91fcf8fdfdf4e3bfe5fefcd1f4e1f0bff6fee7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="adc0c4c1c1c8df83d9c2c0edc8ddcc83cac2db">[email protected]</span></a>>. For a copy of the draft meeting agenda, please 
contact Ms. Dorothy Clark, Management Assistant at (202) 564-4537 or by 
FAX at (202) 501-0582 or via e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6e0d020f1c05400a011c011a06172e0b1e0f40090118"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b9dad5d8cbd297ddd6cbd6cdd1c0f9dcc9d897ded6cf">[email protected]</span></a>>. Single 
copies of the background document, Valuing Fatal Cancer Risk Reductions 
can be obtained by contacting Mr. Brett Snyder, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Office of Policy and Reinvention (Mail Drop 2172), 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460, (202) 260-5610, FAX 
(202) 260-2685, or via email at: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b0c3dec9d4d5c29ed2c2d5c4c4f0d5c0d19ed7dfc6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ddaeb3a4b9b8aff3bfafb8a9a99db8adbcf3bab2ab">[email protected]</span></a>>.

Providing Oral or Written Comments

    Members of the public who wish to make a brief oral presentation to 
the Committee must contact Mr. Thomas Miller, Designated Federal 
Officer for the Environmental Economics Advisory Committee, in writing 
(by letter or fax) no later than 4:00 pm Eastern Time, Thursday, 
February 17, 2000, at the address noted above in order to be included 
on the agenda. The request should identify the name of the individual 
who will make the presentation, the organization (if any) they will 
represent, any audio-visual equipment (e.g., overhead projector, 35 mm 
projector, chalkboard, etc.), and at least 35 copies of an outline of 
the issues to be addressed or the presentation itself. To discuss 
technical aspects of the meeting, please contact Mr. Miller by 
telephone at (202) 564-4558. For a copy of the draft agenda please 
contact Ms. Dorothy Clark, Management Assistant, at (202) 564-4537, or 
by FAX at (202) 501-0582 or via e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7d1e111c0f165319120f120915043d180d1c531a120b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3d5e515c4f561359524f524955447d584d5c135a524b">[email protected]</span></a>>.

Providing Oral or Written Comments at SAB Meetings

    The Science Advisory Board expects that public statements presented 
at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or 
written statements. In general, each individual or group making an oral 
presentation will be limited to a total time of ten minutes. Written 
comments (at least 35 copies) received in the SAB Staff Office 
sufficiently prior to a meeting date (usually one week before the 
meeting), may be mailed to the relevant SAB committee or subcommittee; 
comments received too close to the meeting date will normally be 
provided to the committee at its meeting, or mailed soon after receipt 
by the Agency. Written comments may be provided to the relevant 
committee or subcommittee up until the time of the meeting.
    Additional information concerning the Science Advisory Board, its 
structure, function, and composition, may be found on the SAB Website 
(http://www.epa.gov/sab) and in the 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.

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: January 28, 2000.
Donald G. Barnes,
Staff Director, Science Advisory Board.
[FR Doc. 00-2477 Filed 2-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>