[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
EPA Eliciting Risk Tradeoffs for Valuing Fatal Cancer Risks
I received this on another list server, but thought the list would be
interested in it. I am sorry of its length, but like most federal postings
it was written by lawyers.
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
3050 Traymore Lane
Bowie, MD 20715-2024
E-mail: jenday1@email.msn.com (H)
-----Original Message-----
From: Grissom, Mike [mailto:mikeg@slac.stanford.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 11:10 AM
To: 'Medhp-Sec (E-mail)'
Subject: MEDHP-SEC: US EPA FR re: ...Eliciting Risk Tradeoffs for
Valuing Fatal Cance r Risks
The following US Federal Register Notice was recently
posted by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and may be of special interest to those of you
interested in risk communications and risk-based
development tools for regulatory systems (comments are
due on April 1, 2002):
----------
Federal Register: January 29, 2002 (Volume 67,
Number 19).
Section: Notices
Agency: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Title: Agency Information Collection Activities:
Proposed Collection; Comment Request;
Eliciting Risk Tradeoffs for Valuing Fatal
Cancer Risks
Action: Notice.
Page: 4253-4254
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-7134-5]
Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed
Collection; Comment Request; Eliciting Risk Tradeoffs
for Valuing Fatal Cancer Risks
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that
EPA is planning to submit the following proposed
Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB): Eliciting Risk Tradeoffs
for Valuing Fatal Cancer Risks, EPA ICR 2057.01. Before
submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA
is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the
proposed information collection as described below.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 1,
2002.
ADDRESSES: Dr. Melonie Williams, National Center for
Environmental Economics, US EPA, Mail Code 1809, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC, 20460.
Interested persons may obtain a copy of the ICR without
charge by contacting Dr. Williams at 202-260-7978 or
williams.melonie@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Chris Dockins at
202-260-5728 or dockins.chris@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Affected entities:
Entities potentially affected by this action are
those individuals who are contacted and
voluntarily agree to participate in the survey.
The survey pool will be a pre-established panel
of respondents who have been randomly recruited
from the general public by Knowledge Networks,
Inc. or other web-based survey research firm.
Typically, respondents have agreed with the
survey research firm to participate in periodic
web-based surveys. None of the other surveys
conducted by the firm administering this survey
will be related to this study.
Title:
Eliciting Risk Tradeoffs for Valuing Fatal Cancer
Risks (EPA ICR No. 2057.01).
Abstract:
It is widely recognized that reductions in cancer
risks are among the most important and tangible
benefits resulting from a variety of environmental,
food safety and other public health initiatives.
Nevertheless, assessing these benefits in monetary
terms remains a challenge. In July 2000, the
United States Environmental Protection Agency's
(USEPA's) Science Advisory Board (SAB) concluded
that most existing estimates valuing the benefits
of reductions in mortality risks "should not be
taken as precise estimates for the value of
reducing the risks of fatal cancers, because of
differences in the nature of the risks being
valued * * *." They also commended efforts "to
develop systematic and credible approaches to
improved valuation of the benefits of fatal
cancer risk reduction." (USEPA, 2000). The
purpose of this proposed survey is to extend
these efforts.
Through a cooperative agreement, EPA's Office of
Policy, Economics and Innovation (OPEI) and
Research Triangle Institute (RTI) have designed
and are proposing to conduct a nationwide survey
of adult individuals. The focus of this survey is
to elicit their relative preferences for reducing
two types of potentially very different mortality
risks--risk of automobile death and risk of
contracting a fatal cancer. The existing empirical
literature on mortality risk values has focused
almost exclusively on accidental (occupational
and/or automobile) deaths, because individuals
regularly reveal information on their values for
avoiding these types of risks through job choices
and consumer purchases. However, as the SAB has
concluded, these values may not be directly
applicable for valuing avoided cancer risks. In
contrast to accidental deaths, fatal cancer risks
may involve a long delay between exposure to a
carcinogen and the first symptoms of disease
(latency period), and death may only occur after
several years of suffering with the disease
(morbidity period).
The proposed survey will explore individuals'
tradeoffs between the two types of risks. It will
apply established stated preference research
methods, and the resulting survey data will be
used to estimate
(1) how strongly individuals prefer reducing
one type of risk over the other,
(2) how this strength of preference is
affected by the length of the morbidity
and latency periods,
(3) and how preferences differ across different
types of cancer.
These estimates will help to provide researchers
and policy analysts with a systematic and credible
basis for adjusting existing mortality risk values.
Such adjustments will be particularly useful for
assessing the benefits of reducing fatal cancer
risks, but they will also be relevant in assessing
the benefits of reducing other types of fatal
risks that involve extended latency and/or
morbidity periods.
The data collected through this survey will greatly
benefit any agency or organization that has a role
in protecting the public against fatal cancer risks
and/or an interest in evaluating the resulting
gains to society. Evaluations of this type are
required under executive orders (Executive Order
12866) and a broad array of federal statutes,
including the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Amendments, the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA), and the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA). Federal agencies with a
particular interest in assessing the benefits of
reductions in fatal cancer incidence include not
only the USEPA, but the Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS) (especially the Food and
Drug Administration [FDA]), the Department of
Agriculture (USDA), the Office of Management and
Budget(OMB), and the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) as well. Many agencies and departments must
also evaluate the benefits of their own risk
reduction policies. The methodology proposed for
this research will also provide a model for
future researchers with an interest in exploring
individuals values and tradeoffs between
different types of health improvements.
A thorough pretest of the survey will be
conducted using 250 respondents. For the full
scale survey, information will be collected from
an additional 2000 respondents. The survey is
designed to collect information through an
established panel of respondents, using a WebTV
mode of administration. The data will be
collected and stored electronically by the
survey research firm. Based on previous
experience and a limited number of cognitive
pretest interviews, each survey will take
approximately 25 minutes.
Responses to the survey will be voluntary.
Typically, panel members are free to choose
whether or not to respond to any particular
survey as long as they meet survey quotas set
in their agreement with the web-based survey
research firm. In collaboration with Knowledge
Networks, RTI has developed a plan for assuring
the confidentiality of participants. Under this
plan, the survey will fully conform to federal
regulations--specifically, the Privacy Act of
1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), Privacy Act Regulations (34
CFR part 5b), the Hawkins-Stafford Amendments of
1988 (Public Law 100-297), and the Computer
Security Act of 1987. The plan for maintaining
confidentiality includes signing confidentiality
agreements and notarized nondisclosure affidavits
obtained from all personnel who will have access
to individual identifiers. Also included in the
plan is personnel training regarding the meaning
of confidentiality, particularly as it relates
to handling requests for information and
providing assurance to respondents about the
protection of their responses; controlled and
protected access to computer files under the
control of a single data base manager; built-in
safeguards concerning status monitoring and
receipt control systems; and a secured and
operator-manned in-house computing facility. Data
files and documentation will be delivered to RTI
and EPA at the end of the project, but no names
or addresses will be included on any data file. A
locator database for these sample members will be
maintained by the survey research firm in a
separate and secure location. All data collection
elements and procedures will be reviewed by RTI's
Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects.
This committee serves as RTI's Institutional
Review Board (IRB) as required by 45 CFR part 46.
It is the policy of RTI that the IRB review all
research involving human subjects in a manner
consistent with the regulations in 45 CFR part 46
and regardless of funding source to ensure that
all RTI studies involving human populations
comply with applicable regulations concerning
informed consent, confidentiality, and protection
of privacy.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is
not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed
in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
The EPA would like to solicit comments in order to:
(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including whether
the information will have practical utility;
(ii) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
(iv) minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to respond,
including through the use of appropriate
automated electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or other
forms of information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
Burden Statement:
Because the proposed survey will take advantage
of the existing and pre-recruited panel of WebTV
respondents, the only burden imposed by the survey
on respondents will be the time required to take
the survey. Based on pretest interviews, the survey
authors estimate that this will involve an average
of 25 minutes per respondent. With 250 respondents
for the pilot survey, and 2000 respondents for the
full-scale survey, this will involve a total of
937.5 hours. Since the survey is a one-time
collection, this represents both an annual and a
total burden estimate. Based on an average hourly
wage of $22.15 (including employer costs of all
employee benefits), the survey authors expect that
the average per-respondent cost for the pilot
survey will be $9.23 and the corresponding
one-time total cost to all respondents will be
$20,765.00. Since this information collection is
voluntary and does not involve any additional
special equipment, respondents will not incur any
capital or operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of collecting,
validating, and verifying information, processing
and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions
and requirements; train personnel to be able to
respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection
of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose
the information.
Dated: January 4, 2002.
Al McGartland,
Director, National Center for Environmental Economics,
Office of Policy Economics and Innovation.
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/