Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices 5637

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and

submit 40 copies of the summary

information. The Agency encourages

that written statements be submitted

before the meeting to provide Panel

Members the time necessary to consider

and review the comments.

1. By mail. Submit your comments to:

Public Information and Records

Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information

Resources and Services Division

(7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs

(OPP), Environmental Protection

Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,

DC 20460.

2. In person or by courier. Deliver

your comments to: Public Information

and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB),

Information Resources and Services

Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide

Programs (OPP), Environmental

Protection Agency, Rm. 119, CM2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA.

The PIRIB is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding

legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone

number is (703) 305–5805.

3. Electronically. You may submit

your comments electronically by e-mail

to: ‘‘opp-docket@epa.gov,’’ or you can

submit a computer disk as described

above. Do not submit any information

electronically that you consider to be

CBI. Avoid the use of special characters

and any form of encryption. Electronic

submissions will be accepted in

WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file

format. All comments in electronic form

must be identified by docket control

number OPP–00641. Electronic

comments may also be filed online at

many Federal Depository Libraries.

II. Background

A. Purpose of the Meeting?

This 4-day meeting concerns several

scientific issues undergoing

consideration within the EPA/Office of

Pesticide Programs (OPP). The four

session topics to be addressed during

the 4-day meeting are indicated as

follows:

The first session will focus on

assessing the potential allergenicity of

non-digestible proteins expressed as

plant-pesticides. The specific case in

question concerns the Cry9C

insecticidal protein derived from

Bacillus thuringiensis and expressed in

field corn. The Agency is asking

questions on the use of amino acid

homology, the brown Norway rat model

for food allergenicity and other subjects

with regards to the assessment for

potential allergenicity.

The second session will address the

decomposition module in the Dietary

Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM)

software. In estimating dietary exposure

to pesticides, the Agency uses several

sources for monitoring data of pesticide

residues in foods. These monitoring

data, however, are in the form of

pesticide residues on composited

samples and do not directly represent

concentrations of pesticide residues in

single food items. For acute dietary

exposure estimation, it is the residues in

single items of produce that are of

interest rather than ‘‘average’’ residues

measured in composited samples. The

decomposition module in the DEEM

software uses a statistical procedure in

order to ‘‘decomposite’’ composited

monitoring data to estimate residues in

single items. The purpose of this

presentation is to describe the

decomposition component of the

software.

The second session will also include

a presentation of the MaxLIP (Maximum

Likelihood Imputation Procedure)

Pesticide residue decompositing

procedure and software. For acute

dietary exposure estimation, it is the

residues in single items of produce that

are of interest rather than ‘‘average’’

residues measured in composited

samples. The MaxLIP software uses a

maximum likelihood estimation

procedure in order to ‘‘decomposite’’

composited monitoring data to estimate

residues in single items.

The third session will focus on the

Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model

(DEEM). A major component of

assessing the risks of pesticide

substances is the estimation of dietary

exposure to pesticide residues in foods.

The Agency currently uses the DEEM

exposure assessment software in

conducting its dietary exposure and risk

assessment. The purpose of this session

is to describe the components and

methodologies used by the DEEM

software.

The last session is to provide the

FIFRA SAP with a progress report on

the Agency’s efforts to implement the

drinking water component of the FQPA

aggregate exposure assessment.

Aggregate exposure is defined to

encompass multiple potential sources of

exposure to pesticides and includes

exposure from pesticide residues in

food, in drinking water and in the home.

In order to combine the drinking water

component with the population based

distribution of pesticide residues on

food items in a statistically rigorous

manner, the data should be developed

with the same general structure. In this

way, the Monte Carlo procedure used

for the risk assessment for food stuffs

can be extended to the drinking water

component.

The Agency will outline the basic

steps envisioned in developing national,

population-weighted distributions of

pesticide residues in drinking water and

aggregating them with distributions in

food. These steps include development

of distributions of pesticide drinking

water concentration values across

surface water/drinking water intake

locations, consideration of the impact of

treatment by a water utility, and

development of methodologies to

combine the adjusted distributions with

the distribution of pesticide residues on

food items. The presentation on

development of distributions of

drinking water concentrations will

describe a process using measured data

with a computer modeling/analysis

overlay. The details of how the Agency

will consider the effects of treatment

will be largely addressed in a future

FIFRA SAP meeting.

B. Panel Report

Copies of the Panel’s report of their

recommendations will be available

approximately 45 working days after the

meeting, and will be posted on the

FIFRA SAP web site or may be obtained

by contacting the Public Information

and Records Integrity Branch at the

address or telephone number listed in

Unit I.B. of this document.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection.

Dated: January 27, 2000.

Steven Galson,

Director, Office of Science Coordination and

Policy.

[FR Doc. 00–2483 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

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.

5638 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices

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

<fowle.jack@epa.gov.> 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

<fields.wanda@epa.gov>.

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

<feldman.mike@epa.gov> and Mr.

Kadeli can be reached on (202) 564–

6696 or via e-mail on

<kadeli.lek@epa.gov>.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices 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

<miller.tom@epa.gov>. 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

<clark.dorothy@epa.gov>. 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: <snyder.brett@epa.gov>.

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 <clark.dorothy@epa.gov>.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[PF–908; FRL–6398–9]

Novartis Crop Protection; Notice of

Filing a Pesticide Petition To Establish

a Tolerance for Certain Pesticide

Chemicals in or on Food

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

initial filing of a pesticide petition

proposing the establishment of

regulations for residues of certain

pesticide chemicals in or on various

food commodities.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket

control number PF–908, must be

received on or before March 6, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be

submitted by mail, electronically, or in

person. Please follow the detailed

instructions for each method as

provided in Unit I.C. of the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.