[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: [email protected]. 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: [email protected].
    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: [email protected] 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