[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 160 (Wednesday, August 19, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44437-44439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-22318]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-6148-5]
Science Advisory Board; Emergency Notification of a Public
Advisory Committee Meeting
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463,
notice is hereby given that the Environmental Health Committee (EHC) of
the Science Advisory Board (SAB) will meet on September 8-9, 1998,
beginning no earlier than 8:30 a.m. and ending no later than 6:00 p.m.
on each day. All times noted are Eastern Standard Time. The meeting is
open to the public; however, seating will be on a first-come basis. The
meeting will be held at the Madison Room at the Quality Hotel
Courthouse Plaza which is located at 1200 N. Courthouse Road,
Arlington, Virginia 22201. This meeting was originally scheduled for
August 18-19 and was announced in the Federal Register August 5, 1998
(63 FR 41820-41821). The cancellation of the August 18-19, 1998 meeting
was also announced in the Federal Register.
Purpose: The purpose of the meeting is to conduct a technical
review of the Lead 403 Rule, focusing on the proposed standards that
were developed by the EPA to prioritize abatement and hazard control
activities under Title X of the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act
on September 8-9, 1998. Both sessions are open to the public.
Draft Charge Questions: The EHC has been asked to respond to the
following, draft Charge questions which are subject to revision:
General
1. In each of the specific areas identified below, have we used the
best available data? Have we used this data appropriately? Have we
fairly characterized the variability, uncertainties and limitations of
the data and our analyses?
2. Are there alternative approaches that would improve our ability
to assess the relative risk impacts of candidate options for paint,
dust, and soil hazard standards?
3. The approach employs risk assessment models that were primarily
developed for use in site-specific or localized assessments. Has the
use and application of the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model
(IEUBK) and empirical model in this context been sufficiently explained
and justified? Is our use of these tools to estimate nationwide impacts
technically sound?
4. Are there any critical differences in environmental lead-blood
lead
[[Page 44438]]
relationships found in local communities that should be considered in
interpreting our results at the national level?
5. In view of the issues discussed and analyzed in sensitivity
analyses contained in the two documents, in what specific areas should
we focus (e.g., refine our approach, gather additional data, etc.)
between now and the final rule? (The timing of the final rule will be
dictated by a consent agreement. We should be in a position to present
a firm schedule prior to the SAB meeting.)
Specific
1. The HUD National Survey, conducted in 1989-90, measured lead
levels in paint, dust, and soil in 284 privately owned houses. Does our
use of this data constitute a reasonable approach to estimating the
national distribution of lead in paint, dust, and soil?
2. The approach employs conversion factors to combine data from
studies that used different sample collection techniques. Is this
appropriate? Is the method for developing these conversion factors
technically sound?
3. IQ point deficits.
(a) the approach characterizes IQ decrements in the baseline blood-
lead distribution, essentially implying that any blood-lead level above
zero results in IQ effects. Have we provided a sufficient technical
justification for this approach? Is this approach defensible and
appropriate?
(b) the characterization of IQ point loss in the population
includes the summation of fractional IQ points over the entire
population of children. Have we provided a sufficient technical
justification for this approach? Is this approach defensible and
appropriate?
(c) one of the IQ-related endpoints is incidence of IQ less than
70. Should consideration be given to what the IQ score was, or would
have been, prior to the decrement (i.e., should different consideration
be given to cases where a small, or even fractional, point decrement
causes the <70 occurrence="" vs.="" being=""><70 due="" to="" larger="" decrements)?="" if="" so,="" how="" might="" this="" be="" done?="" 4.="" are="" the="" assumptions="" regarding="" duration,="" effectiveness,="" and="" costs="" of="" intervention="" activities="" reasonable?="" 5.="" are="" the="" combinations="" of="" standards="" used="" in="" chapter="" 6="" of="" the="" risk="" analysis="" reasonably="" employed="" given="" the="" potential="" interrelationships="" between="" levels="" of="" lead="" in="" different="" media?="" is="" additional="" data="" available="" on="" the="" interrelationship="" between="" lead="" levels="" in="" paint,="" dust,="" and="" soil="" prior="" to="" and="" after="" abatement?="" 6.="" the="" approach="" for="" estimating="" health="" effect="" and="" blood-lead="" concentration="" endpoints="" after="" interventions="" is="" based="" upon="" scaling="" projected="" declines="" in="" the="" distribution="" of="" children's="" blood-lead="" concentrations="" to="" the="" distribution="" reported="" in="" phase="" 2="" of="" the="" national="" health="" and="" human="" nutrition="" examination="" survey="" (nhanes)="" iii.="" under="" this="" approach,="" data="" collected="" in="" the="" hud="" national="" survey="" are="" utilized="" to="" generate="" model-predicted="" distributions="" of="" blood-lead="" concentrations="" prior="" to="" and="" after="" the="" rule="" making.="" the="" difference="" between="" the="" pre="" section="" 403="" and="" post="" section="" 403="" model="" predicted="" distributions="" is="" used="" to="" estimate="" the="" decline="" in="" the="" distribution="" of="" children's="" blood-lead="" concentration.="" this="" decline="" is="" then="" mathematically="" applied="" to="" the="" distribution="" reported="" in="" nhanes="" iii.="" is="" this="" adjustment="" scientifically="" defensible="" in="" general,="" and="" in="" the="" specific="" case="" where="" the="" environmental="" data--from="" the="" hud="" survey--and="" the="" blood="" lead="" data--from="" nhanes="" iii--="" were="" collected="" at="" different="" times="" (1989-90="" vs.="" 1991-1994)?="" background:="" under="" title="" x="" of="" the="" lead-based="" paint="" hazard="" reduction="" act,="" the="" environmental="" protection="" agency="" (epa)="" is="" charged="" with="" promulgating="" standards="" to="" identify="" dangerous="" levels="" of="" lead,="" which="" includes="" hazards="" from="" lead-based="" paint,="" lead-contaminated="" dust,="" and="" lead-contaminated="" soil="" (toxic="" substances="" control="" act="" (tsca)="" section="" 403).="" the="" presence="" of="" these="" ``lead-based="" paint="" hazards''="" triggers="" various="" requirements="" (e.g.,="" abatement="" workers="" must="" be="" certified="" if="" lead-based="" paint="" or="" lead-based="" paint="" hazards="" are="" present="" in="" a="" residence.)="" the="" office="" prevention,="" pesticides="" and="" toxic="" substance's="" (oppts)="" approach="" is="" to="" promulgate="" standards="" that="" can="" be="" used="" to="" prioritize="" abatement="" and="" hazard="" control="" activities,="" rather="" than="" to="" attempt="" to="" define="" health="" threshold="" levels="" (i.e.,="" to="" target="" the="" worst="" cases="" rather="" than="" to="" establish="" ``safe''="" levels).="" while="" this="" will="" ultimately="" be="" a="" risk="" management="" decision,="" analyses="" of="" the="" prevalence="" of="" environmental="" lead="" levels="" in="" u.s.="" residences,="" incremental="" costs="" and="" benefits="" (estimated="" reductions="" in="" children's="" blood="" lead),="" and="" implementation/="" enforceability="" issues="" will="" be="" used="" to="" choose="" between="" various="" options="" for="" dust="" and="" soil="" lead="" levels.="" oppts="" seeks="" an="" sab="" review="" of="" its="" technical="" approach="" to="" characterizing="" the="" incremental="" differences="" in="" costs="" and="" benefits="" between="" various="" candidate="" dust="" and="" soil="" lead="" levels.="" for="" further="" information:="" copies="" of="" the="" review="" document="" and="" any="" background="" materials="" for="" the="" review="" are="" not="" available="" from="" the="" sab.="" requests="" for="" copies="" of="" the="" background="" material="" may="" be="" directed="" to="" mr.="" dave="" topping="" by="" telephone="" (202)="" 260-7737,="" by="" fax="" (202)="" 260-0770="" or="" via="" e-mail="" at:="">topping.dave@epa.gov. Technical questions regarding the SAB
review of the TSCA Section 403 Rule may also be directed to Mr. Dave
Topping. Members of the public desiring additional information about
the meeting, including an agenda, should contact Ms. Wanda Fields,
Management Assistant, EHC, Science Advisory Board (1400), US EPA, 401 M
Street, SW, Washington DC 20460, by telephone (202) 260-5510 by fax
(202) 260-7118; or via E-mail at: fields.wanda@epa.gov.
Providing Oral or Written Comments at SAB Meetings: Anyone wishing
to make an oral presentation at the meeting must contact Ms. Roslyn
Edson, Acting Designated Federal Officer for the EHC, in writing, no
later than 5:00 pm Eastern Time on September 1, 1998, by fax (202) 260-
7118, or via E-mail: edson.roslyn@epa.gov The request should identify
the name of the individual who will make the presentation and an
outline of the issues to be addressed. At least 35 copies of any
written comments to the Committee are to be given to Ms. Edson no later
than the time of the presentation for distribution to the Committee and
the interested public.
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. For
conference call meetings, opportunities for oral comment will be
limited to no more than five 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, may be
mailed to the relevant SAB committee or subcommittee prior to its
meeting; comments received too close to the meeting date will normally
be provided to the committee at its meeting. Written comments may be
provided to the relevant committee or subcommittee up until the time of
the meeting.
Information concerning the Science Advisory Board, its structure,
function, and composition, may be found in The FY1997 Annual Report of
the Staff Director which is available from the SAB Committee Evaluation
and Support Staff (CESS) by contacting US EPA, Science Advisory Board
(1400), Attention: CESS, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460 or via
fax (202) 260-1889. Additional information
[[Page 44439]]
concerning the SAB can be found on the SAB Home Page at: http://
www.epa.gov/sab.
Dated: August 12, 1998.
Patricia Thomas,
Acting Staff Director, Science Advisory Board.
[FR Doc. 98-22318 Filed 8-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
