Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0316-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Request for Nominations: Scientific Peer Reviewers; Potential Approaches for Characterizing the Estimated Benefits of Reducing PM2.5 at Low Concentrations
Posted Date: 2019-06-13T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 114 (Thursday, June 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27632-27634]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12487]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0316; FRL-9995-04-OAR]

Request for Nominations: Scientific Peer Reviewers; Potential 
Approaches for Characterizing the Estimated Benefits of Reducing PM2.5 
at Low Concentrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites the public 
to nominate scientific experts to be considered as peer reviewers for 
the EPA-drafted report titled, ``Potential Approaches for 
Characterizing the Estimated Benefits of Reducing PM2.5 at 
Low Concentrations''. A nominee, if selected, will assess the accuracy, 
content, and interpretation of findings of the report, ensuring that 
they are factual and scientifically sound. The peer review will provide 
input to EPA regarding the merits of the technical approaches.

DATES: The nomination period begins on June 13, 2019 and ends on July 
5, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit the nominations, identified by docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0316. In addition, the nomination must include the 
nominee's full name, address, affiliation, telephone number, email 
address, and a statement on the nominee's expertise. Use one of the 
following submission methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov 
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting 
nominations.
     Email: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov. Include the Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0316 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744. Include the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0316 in the subject line of the message.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket 
Center, Office of Air and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Docket Center, WJC West 
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. 
The Docket Center's hours of operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., 
Monday-Friday (except Federal Holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID 
No. for this Notice. Submissions received may be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any

[[Page 27633]]

personal information provided. For detailed instructions on sending 
submissions, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neal Fann, Health and Environmental 
Impacts, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C-439-02), 
Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Durham, NC 
27711. Phone: (919) 541-0209, Fax: (919) 541-5315, Email: 
Fann.Neal@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    Submit your nomination, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0316, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or 
the other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once submitted, 
submissions cannot be edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may 
publish any submission received to its public docket. Do not submit 
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 
accompanied by a written submission. The written submission is 
considered the official submission and should include discussion of all 
points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider 
submissions or submission content located outside of the primary 
submission (i.e., on the Web, Cloud, or other file sharing system). For 
additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, 
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance 
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. Background

    The EPA uses evidence from long-term exposure cohort studies to 
estimate the number of PM2.5-related premature deaths and 
morbidity effects in its air pollution benefits analyses. Generally, 
the U.S. EPA quantifies effects for the full distribution of ambient 
PM2.5 concentrations, including at concentrations below the 
lowest measured levels (LML) of these studies; this reflects the 
current scientific evidence, which does not find a threshold in the 
concentration-response relationship. However, because of the absence of 
data at such low concentrations, there is greater uncertainty about the 
likelihood of health effects, including premature death. The degree of 
uncertainty associated with premature deaths estimated at these lower 
levels has over time taken on greater prominence, due in part to 
decreasing ambient PM2.5 concentrations, the public health 
importance of PM2.5-associated mortality, and the magnitude 
of the economic value of the effect. As a means of improving its 
methods for quantifying and characterizing effects estimated at these 
lower PM2.5 levels, the Agency is developing and evaluating 
potential alternative approaches for estimating these effects. 
Potential approaches will be described in a U.S. EPA report. This 
report will: Detail new techniques for deriving information regarding 
uncertainty at low PM2.5 concentrations using data available 
from the peer-reviewed published epidemiology literature; demonstrate 
the application of these techniques in an example PM2.5 air 
pollution benefits assessment; discuss the strengths and weaknesses of 
each technique; and, compare these techniques against alternatives 
including the use of lowest measured level cut-points or the use of 
meta-analytic approaches designed to characterize the magnitude of the 
PM mortality effect across a broader array of concentrations. This 
report will be subject to an independent, contractor-led peer review.
    The EPA identified the ``Potential Approaches for Characterizing 
the Estimated Benefits of Reducing PM2.5 at Low 
Concentrations'' as a Highly Influential Scientific Assessment, and 
according to the Agency's Science and Technology Policy Council, Peer 
Review Handbook (Fourth Edition, EPA/100/B-15/001, 2015) (Agency's Peer 
Review Handbook), is required to conduct an external peer review of 
that report and supplemental files. The reviewers are asked to assess 
the accuracy, content, and interpretation of findings ensuring that 
they are factual and scientifically sound. The review shall generate 
comments from the individual expert reviewers.
    A synopsis of the report may be found on the project website: 
https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/PM_Uncertainty. The Agency will periodically update this 
website to include the full technical report, public comments on the 
selected peer reviewers and peer reviewer comments on the technical 
report.

III. Expertise Sought

    Any interested person or organization may nominate him or herself 
or any qualified individual in the areas of expertise described below. 
Peer reviewers should have: (1) Published 5 or more manuscripts in one 
more relevant manuscripts in journals with an impact factor of 5 or 
greater; and (2) demonstrated expertise in one or more of the following 
areas:
    A. Air pollution epidemiology. Author or co-author of multiple 
studies that examined the relationship between long-term air pollution 
exposure and mortality or morbidity in a large cohort.
    B. Air pollution biostatistics. Intricate knowledge of the 
development of new and innovative statistical methods to examine the 
relationship between air pollution and human health. This knowledge is 
reflected in the individual's publication record, and by leading or co-
leading the development of statistical models used in epidemiologic 
studies examining the health effects of either short- or long-term air 
pollution exposure.
    C. Risk assessment and benefits analysis. Expertise in the best 
practices for expressing the probability of population-level adverse 
outcomes expected to occur due to changes in environmental stressors. 
This knowledge will have been reflected by the individual having led 
studies interpreting and applying novel approaches in the epidemiology 
literature to characterize population risks. Expertise in the best 
practices for estimating the economic value of uncertain air pollution-
related effects, including the risk of premature death. Expertise in 
characterizing uncertainty in the value of reducing the risk of adverse 
effects.
    D. Decision sciences and uncertainty analysis. Expertise in using 
quantitative techniques to inform decision-making in a public health, 
public policy or regulatory context. Expertise in both frequentist and 
Bayesian techniques of uncertainty analysis.
    E. Economics. Expertise in econometrics, particularly in using 
these techniques to analyze time series data and panel data. Expertise 
in running survival models and in performing large-scale quantitative 
meta-analyses. Expertise in welfare economics.

IV. Peer-Review Panel Selection Criteria

    Selection criteria for individuals nominated to serve as external 
peer reviewers include the following:
    A. Demonstrated expertise through relevant peer reviewed 
publications.
    B. Professional accomplishments and recognition by professional 
societies.
    C. Demonstrated ability to work constructively and effectively in 
an advisory panel setting.

[[Page 27634]]

    D. Absence of financial conflicts of interest.
    E. No actual conflicts of interest or the appearance of lack of 
impartiality.
    F. Background and experiences that would contribute to the 
diversity of viewpoints on the panel, e.g., workforce sector; 
geographical location; social, cultural, and educational backgrounds; 
and professional affiliations.
    G. Willingness to commit adequate time for the thorough review of 
the draft external peer review document in July-August 2019 (exact date 
to be determined).
    H. Availability to participate in-person in a 1-day peer review 
meeting in Research Triangle Park, NC in August or September 2019 
(exact date will be published in the Federal Register at least 30 days 
prior to the external peer review meeting).
    Further information regarding the external peer review meeting will 
be announced at a later date on the project website here: https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/PM_Uncertainty.

V. Peer-Review Panel Selection Process

    The EPA contractor will follow the Agency's Conflict of Interest 
Review Process for Contractor-Managed Peer Reviews of EPA Highly 
Influential Scientific Assessment (HISA) and Influential Scientific 
Information (ISI) documents (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-01/documents/epa-process-for-contractor_0.pdf) and Peer 
Review Handbook (https://www.epa.gov/osa/peer-review-handbook-4th-edition-2015) to select the peer-review panel. After candidates are 
nominated subsequent to this Federal Register notice, the EPA 
contractor will follow-up with nominees and request additional 
information such as:
    A. The disciplinary and specific areas of expertise of the nominee.
    B. The nominee's curriculum vitae.
    C. A biographical sketch of the nominee indicating current 
position; educational background; past and current research activities; 
recent service on other advisory committees, peer review panels, 
editorial boards, or professional organizations; sources of recent 
grant and/or contract support; and other comments on the relevance of 
the nominee's expertise to this peer review topic.
    The EPA contractor may also conduct an independent search for 
candidates to assemble a balanced group representing the expertise 
needed to fully evaluate EPA's draft report and supplemental materials. 
The EPA contractor will consider and screen all candidates against the 
criteria listed in Unit III and the Agency's Conflict of Interest (COI) 
and appearance of bias guidance with the Agency's Peer Review Handbook, 
available online at: https://www.epa.gov/osa/peer-review-handbook-4th-edition-2015. Following the screening process, the EPA contractor will 
narrow the list of potential reviewers. Prior to selecting the final 
peer reviewers, a second Federal Register notice will be published to 
solicit comments on the interim list of 7-10 candidates. The public 
will be requested to provide relevant information or documentation on 
the nominees that the EPA contractor should consider in evaluating the 
candidates within 21 days following the announcement of the interim 
candidates. Once the public comments on the interim list of candidates 
have been reviewed, the EPA contractor will select the final peer 
reviewers who, collectively, best provide expertise spanning the 
multiple areas listed in Unit III and, to the extent feasible, best 
provide a balance of perspectives. The EPA contractor will ultimately 
notify candidates of selection or non-selection. Compensation of non-
Federal peer reviewers will be provided by the EPA contractor.

    Dated: June 7, 2019.
Panagiotis Tsirigotis,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2019-12487 Filed 6-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P