[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 30, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15160-15163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-7771]
[[Page 15160]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-6317-3]
Science Advisory Board; Notice of Public Meetings
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463,
notice is hereby given that two Subcommittees of the Advisory Council
on Clean Air Compliance Analysis of the Science Advisory Board (SAB)
will meet on the dates and times described below. All times noted are
Eastern Time and all meetings are open to the public, however, seating
is limited and available on a first come basis. Documents that are the
subject of SAB reviews are normally available from the originating EPA
Office and are not available from the SAB Office. Public drafts of SAB
reports are available to the Agency and the public from the SAB Office.
Details on availability are noted below.
Background
The Air Quality Models Subcommittee (AQMS) and the Health and
Ecological Effects Subcommittee (HEES) (both part of the Science
Advisory Board's (SAB) Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance
Analysis), will each hold public meetings on the dates and times
described below. For further information concerning the specific
meetings described in this section, please contact the individuals
listed below. These public meetings are a follow-up to earlier Council,
AQMS and HEES public meetings held on January 22 & 23, 1998 (AQMS),
January 29 & 30, 1998 (HEES) and February 5 & 6, 1998 (Council) (See 62
FR 67363, Wednesday, December 24, 1997) pertaining to the ongoing
review of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) Section 812
Prospective Study of Costs and Benefits. (See also earlier meetings
pertaining to the Prospective Study as announced in 62 FR 10045,
Wednesday, March 5, 1997; 62 FR 19320, April 21, 1997; and 62 FR 32605,
June 16, 1997).
Consistent with the apparent Congressional intent behind Section
812 of the 1990 CAAA, and with the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) judgments regarding the potential utility of a comprehensive
economic assessment of the Clean Air Act, the four fundamental goals of
the first Prospective Study to be submitted to Congress are stated
succinctly as follows:
(a) To facilitate greater understanding of the value of America's
overall investment in clean air, particularly the value of the
additional requirements established by the 1990-CAAA (CAAA-90);
(b) To facilitate greater understanding of where future investments
in air pollution control might yield the greatest reduction in adverse
human health and/or environmental effects for the resources expended;
(c) To help evaluate the significance of potential new and emerging
information pertaining to the benefits and costs of air pollution
control;
(d) To help identify areas of economic and scientific research
where additional effort might improve the comprehensiveness of and/or
decrease the uncertainty associated with future estimates of the
benefits and costs of air pollution control.
Pursuant to the above four goals, the Agency has embarked on and
engaged the Council and its subcommittees in review of the Prospective
Study activities. These activities involve a number of component
studies, such as analytical design, scenario development, emissions
profiles, air quality modeling, physical effects modeling, direct cost
estimation, sector studies, air toxics analysis, economic valuation,
comparison of benefits and costs, and report generation. Working drafts
of relevant portions of these components, along with focused charges
have been presented to the Council and its two subcommittees, the Air
Quality Models Subcommittee (AQMS) and the Health and Ecological
Effects Subcommittee (HEES). For the most recent reviews, the Council,
AQMS and HEES prepared the following Advisories: (a) Prospective Study
I: Advisory by the Air Quality Models Subcommittee on the Air Quality
Models and Emissions Estimates Initial Studies, EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-98-
02, September 9, 1998; (b) Advisory on the CAAA of 1990 Section 812
Prospective Study: Overview of Air Quality and Emissions Estimates
Modeling, Health and Ecological Valuation Issues Initial Studies, EPA-
SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-98-003, September 9, 1998; and (c) An SAB Advisory on
the Health and Ecological Effects Initial Studies of the Section 812
Prospective Study: Report to Congress, EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-99-005,
February 10, 1999. (See below for how to obtain copies of these reports
from the SAB).
Upcoming meetings are described below. Other meetings, including a
meeting of the full Council are in the planning stage and will take
place this spring or summer. These meetings will be announced in a
subsequent Federal Register Notice.
The draft document that presents, compiles and documents the
results and methodologies used for the first draft of the Prospective
Study: Report to Congress, including the Appendices to the draft, which
are the subject of these reviews will be available upon request from
the originating EPA office (See below for how to obtain copies from the
EPA Program Office).
1. Health and Ecological Effects Subcommittee (HEES)
The Health and Ecological Effects Subcommittee (HEES) of the
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis will review the draft
Prospective Study: Report to Congress, with a focus on the health and
ecological aspects of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) Section 812
Prospective Study data, emissions modeling assumptions, methodology,
results and documentation of human health effects, ecological effects,
and assessment of impact on stratospheric ozone. Specific review
materials include: Draft Appendix D: Human Health Effects; Draft
Appendix E: Ecological Effects; and Draft Appendix G: Stratospheric
Ozone Assessment. The HEES will meet on Tuesday, April 20, 1999, from
9:30 am to 5:00 pm and Wednesday, April 21, 1999 from 9:00 am to 4:00
pm. The meeting will take place in the Latham Hotel, 3000 M Street,
N.W., Washington, DC 20007; tel. (202) 726-5000.
The draft charge to the HEES is as follows:
It is respectfully requested that the Council--and its subsidiary
HEES-- review the forthcoming materials and provide advice to the
Agency pursuant to the following general charge questions, consistent
with the review responsibilities of the Council as defined in section
812 of the CAAA90:1.
(a) Are the input data used for each component of the analysis
sufficiently valid and reliable for the intended analytical purpose?
(b) Are the models, and the methodologies they employ, used for
each component of the analysis sufficiently valid and reliable for the
intended analytical purpose?
(c) If the answers to either of the two questions above is
negative, what specific alternative assumptions, data or methodologies
does the Council recommend the Agency consider using for the first
prospective analysis?
While the above charge defines the general scope of the advice
requested from the Council and the HEES, a number of specific questions
are presented below for which the Agency is particularly interested in
obtaining
[[Page 15161]]
advice from the Council and HEES. In addition, further specific
questions and issues may be presented for consideration to the Council
and HEES during the discussions scheduled to take place on April 20-21,
1999.
(d) In response to the emergence of new information and analysis
EPA has recently re-evaluated the literature and developed a new
approach to estimating reductions in mortality resulting from decreased
ozone concentrations. EPA proposes to use a Monte-Carlo based meta-
analysis of the literature relating ozone concentrations and mortality,
and requests comment on the following four issues:
(1) Soundness of Approach--Reviewers should address the suitability
of the study authors' meta-analysis technique, and evaluate the method
against other possible meta-analysis techniques.
(2) Study Selection Criteria--Reviewers should consider the
appropriateness and comprehensiveness of the nine study selection
criteria used in the meta-analysis, and/or suggest alternative or
additional criteria where appropriate. In particular, EPA requests
comments on the use of European studies to characterize US
concentration-response functions.
(3) Treatment of Uncertainty--Reviewers should specifically address
any concerns or problems associated with the authors' treatment of
uncertainty surrounding reported ozone regression coefficients.
(4) Interpretation of Results--EPA seeks guidance on interpreting
the meta-analysis results relative to the Pope PM study; i.e., the
appropriateness of using these results to estimate the share of
mortality attributable to ozone exposure, versus mortality incremental
to the results of the Pope study.
(e) HEES encouraged EPA to evaluate a wide range of threshold
assumptions in the PM mortality analysis. In response to HEES' comments
on this issue, EPA performed a sensitivity analysis of thresholds below
and above the annual PM2.5 standard of 15 g/m\3\. EPA requests
guidance from the HEES on the following points:
(1) Clarification of the HEES analytic basis for rejecting use of
the lowest observed effects level as estimated in the underlying health
effects literature;
(2) Clarification of the analytic basis for any threshold greater
than the 15 g/m\3\ level;
(3) Suggestions for an analytically defensible approach to
developing concentration-response functions that correctly adjust for
the threshold assumption. In particular, EPA requests advice on whether
introducing a threshold implies changes to the functional form and
slope of the C-R function that is derived from the underlying studies.
(f) Regarding assessment of the benefits of reductions in air
toxics, EPA requests guidance and clarification from the HEES as to how
in-depth review of high-risk HAPs can be used to generate estimates of
avoided health impacts due to reductions in HAP exposure, given the
scarcity of HAP monitoring data and HEES significant concerns about the
reliability of HAP concentration estimates generated by the ASPEN
model.
(g) In response to HEES recommendations, EPA is developing a
qualitative characterization of regional variation in C-R functions.
EPA requests guidance on specific studies that document the extent of
regional variation.
(h) EPA requests HEES review of the proposed method to estimate
changes in health risks among Canadians and Mexicans that would result
from CAAA controls. EPA requests HEES comments on the validity and
defensibility of the assumptions and methods proposed for estimating
these effects and on the suitability of the approach.
(i) In response to HEES suggestions, EPA plans to: incorporate the
revised Pope data; reduce PM-related neonatal mortality to an
illustrative calculation; incorporate the most current research on CO-
related health effects, chronic bronchitis incidence, and ozone-related
emergency room visits for asthma; develop a summary table of
uncertainties; and present non-monetized health benefit results
relative to national incidence rates. EPA requests HEES review of these
changes in the review material submitted to ensure they adequately
reflect concerns expressed in previous HEES meetings.
(j) EPA requests SAB review of our ecological assessment framework.
In particular, EPA has incorporated in the 812 report extensive
discussion of: major stressors from air emissions subject to control
under the CAAA and a broad range of possible impacts on ecosystem
structure and function. EPA also requests review of our clarification
of the selection process for identifying those elements of ecological
impacts that we find suitable for quantification and monetization,
based on the level of understanding of the effect and the ability to
develop a defensible causal link between changes in air pollution
emissions and specific ecological impacts.
(k) EPA requests review of other modifications incorporated in the
ecological evaluation approach, including the following:
(1) Qualitative characterization of interaction between air toxics
and acidification in aquatic systems;
(2) Quantitative accounting for lag times in the acidification
analysis and qualitative characterization in other parts of the
analysis;
(3) Quantitative consideration of nitrogen saturation of
terrestrial ecosystems;
(4) Use of the PnET II model in place of the deSteiguer study for
estimating the impacts of ozone exposure on commercial forest stands;
(5) The criteria for selection of case study estuaries and the
treatment of case study results in the analysis of the impacts of
nitrogen deposition;
(6) The rationale for considering the recreational fishing impacts
of nitrogen deposition in a qualitative manner only.
2. Air Quality Models Subcommittee (AQMS)
The Air Quality Models Subcommittee (AQMS) of the Advisory Council
on Clean Air Compliance Analysis will meet Tuesday, May 4, 1999, from
9:00 am to 5:00 pm and Wednesday, May 5, 1999 from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm.
The meeting will take place in the Science Advisory Board Conference
Room M3709, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460.
In this meeting, the AQMS will review the draft Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) Section 812 Prospective Study: Report to Congress
with a focus on the data, emissions modeling assumptions, methodology,
results and documentation. Specific review materials include: Draft
Appendix A: Scenario Development and Emissions Modeling; Draft Appendix
C: Air Quality Modeling; Memorandum ``Use of a Homology Mapping
Technique to Estimate Ozone and Particulate Matter; Concentrations for
Unmonitored Areas,'' from Sharon G. Douglas, Robert K. Iwamiya, and
Hans P. Deuel, dated: 26 March 1999; Excerpt from Draft Human Health
Effects Appendix D describing VNA method. In previous public meetings
of the Council (See 61 FR 54196, Thursday, October 17, 1996, and 62 FR
10045, Wednesday, March 5, 1997 for further information), the Council
advised the Agency staff that the Subcommittee should review the
emissions modeling information before proceeding to conduct any model
runs. The May 5, 1997 public teleconference (See 62 FR 19320, Monday,
April 21, 1997) of the AQMS was conducted for this purpose and produced
a letter report (EPA-SAB-
[[Page 15162]]
COUNCIL-LTR-97-012, dated September 9, 1997, see below for ordering
information).
The charge to the AQMS is as follows:
It is respectfully requested that the Council --and its subsidiary
AQMS-- review the forthcoming materials and provide advice to the
Agency pursuant to the following general charge questions, consistent
with the review responsibilities of the Council as defined in section
812 of the CAAA90:1
(a) Are the input data used for each component of the analysis
sufficiently valid and reliable for the intended analytical purpose?
(b) Are the models, and the methodologies they employ, used for
each component of the analysis sufficiently valid and reliable for the
intended analytical purpose?
(c) If the answers to either of the two questions above is
negative, what specific alternative assumptions, data or methodologies
does the Council recommend the Agency consider using for the first
prospective analysis?
While the above charge defines the general scope of the advice
requested from the Council and the AQMS, several specific questions are
presented below for which the Agency is particularly interested in
obtaining advice from the Council and AQMS. In addition, further
specific questions and issues may be presented for consideration to the
Council and AQMS during the discussions scheduled to take place on May
4-5, 1999.
(d) Do the revisions made to the particulate matter emissions
inventories--as described in the draft Report to Congress Emissions
Appendix--adequately address the concerns raised by the Council and the
AQMS during the January-February 1998 review meetings? If not, are
there further adjustments which the Council and AQMS would recommend be
made in future assessments; and do residual potential errors in the
inventories warrant--in the judgment of the Council and AQMS--inclusion
in EPA's pending report specific caveats regarding the magnitude and
direction of potential biases which might be introduced through
reliance on these inventories?
(e) The Project Team has used an expanded array of air quality
model-derived adjustment factors to estimate changes relative to
baseline air quality concentrations. Specifically, rather than a single
adjustment factor applied in the Retrospective Study to estimate
concentration changes across the entire range of initial ambient
concentrations for a given pollutant, ten separate adjustment factors
were calculated and applied based on decile midpoints generated by the
relevant air quality model. Do the Council and AQMS consider this
methodological change to reflect an improvement in the validity and
reliability of projected concentration changes relative to the
previous, single adjustment factor approach?
(f) The Project Team has used an alternative spatial interpolation
method to estimate baseline air quality concentrations in locations
which do not have adequate local monitoring data. In the Retrospective
Study, complete representation of initial air quality conditions in the
48 contiguous states for each pollutant was obtained by simple spatial
interpolation to each unmonitored or undermonitored location from the
closest relevant, sufficiently operated monitor. Based on advice from
the AQMS and Council pursuant to the January-February 1998 review
meetings, the Project Team sought to develop an enhanced methodology
based on a ``space-time continuum'' concept described by the AQMS. The
``homology mapping technique'' subsequently developed by the Project
Team proved promising in initial validation tests; however the Project
Team concluded that additional development and validation work should
be completed before using the tool in the context of the section 812
studies. As an alternative, an enhanced version of the traditional
spatial interpolation method was developed which relies on inverse
distance-weighted interpolation from multiple surrounding monitors.
This technique is referred to as ``Voronoi Neighbor Averaging (VNA)''.
The Project Team requests advice from the Council and AQMS on the
following two sub-questions:
(1) Do the Council and AQMS consider the homology mapping technique
a reasonable adaptation of the space-time continuum concept previously
advanced? If so, what specific additional development, testing, and
validation steps do the Council and AQMS recommend be undertaken by the
Project Team to facilitate potential use of this technique in future
assessments?
(2) Do the Council and AQMS consider the change to the VNA approach
to reflect an improvement in the validity and reliability of projected
initial air quality concentration estimates relative to the previous,
single monitor spatial interpolation method?
3. Air Quality Models Subcommittee: (AQMS)--Teleconference
The Air Quality Models Subcommittee (AQMS) of the Council will
conduct a public teleconference on Thursday, June 3, 1999, from 11:00
am to 1:00 pm, Eastern Time, to review status of revisions to the draft
Prospective Study: Report to Congress, as well as to conduct edits to
its own draft report in review of the prospective study at the
previously scheduled meeting on May 4 and 5, 1999 (see above). Please
contact one of the SAB Staff contacts listed below to see if these
drafts are available to the public at that time. This Teleconference
will be hosted out of the Science Advisory Board Conference Room (Room
M3709), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
(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), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street,
SW, Washington, DC 20460. Tel. (202) 260-5580; FAX (202) 260-9766, or
via e-mail at jefferson.catrice@epa.gov>. To discuss technical aspects
of the draft document pertaining to the CAAA-90 Section 812 Prospective
Study: Report to Congress, please contact Mr. James DeMocker, Office of
Policy Analysis and Review (OPAR) (Mail Code 6103), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. Tel. (202)
260-8980; FAX (202) 260-9766, or via e-mail at: democker.jim@epa.gov>.
(b) Contacting SAB Staff and Obtaining Meeting Information--To
obtain copies of the meeting agendas or rosters of participants, please
contact Ms. Diana L. Pozun, Management Assistant to the Council, AQMS
and HEES, Science Advisory Board (1400), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC 20460; at Tel. (202) 260-8432; FAX (202) 260-
7118; or via e-mail: pozun.diana@epa.gov>. To discuss technical or
logistical aspects of the AQMS and HEES subcommittee review process or
to submit written comments, please contact Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjian
(Tel. (202) 260-2560; or via e-mail: kooyoomjian.jack@epa.gov>), and/
or Dr. Angela Nugent (Tel. (202) 260-4126; or via e-mail:
nugent.angela@epa.gov>), Designated Federal Officers to the Council,
AQMS and HEES, Science Advisory Board
[[Page 15163]]
(1400), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460, FAX
(202) 260-7118. To obtain information concerning the teleconference and
how to participate in the SAB Conference Room or to call in, please
contact Ms. Pozun.
(c) Providing Public Comments to the SAB--To request time to
provide brief public comments at the meetings, please contact Ms. Diana
L. Pozun in writing by mail, FAX or E-Mail at the addresses given above
no later than one week prior to each of the meetings. Please be sure to
specify which meeting(s) you wish to attend and provide comments, 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 Dr. Kooyoomjian at
the above address prior to the meeting date.
(d) Obtaining Copies of SAB Reports--Copies of SAB prepared final
reports mentioned in this Federal Register Notice may be obtained
immediately from the SAB Home Page (www.epa.gov/sab)or by mail/fax from
the SAB's Committee Evaluation and Support Staff at Tel. (202) 260-
4126, or FAX (202) 260-1889. Please provide the SAB report number when
making your request. Draft reports in progress can be obtained from Ms.
Pozun once the Committee or Subcommittee Chair has released the draft.
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 the appropriate DFO at
least five business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate
arrangements can be made.
Dated: March 24, 1999.
Donald G. Barnes,
Staff Director, Science Advisory Board.
[FR Doc. 99-7771 Filed 3-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
