60190 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 10, 2000 / Notices

Advisory Board expects that public

statements presented at its meetings will

not be repetitive of previously

submitted oral or written statements.

Oral Comments: In general, each

individual or group requesting an oral

presentation at a face-to-face meeting

will be limited to a total time of ten

minutes. For teleconference meetings,

opportunities for oral comment will

usually be limited to no more than three

minutes per speaker and no more than

fifteen minutes total. Deadlines for

getting on the public speaker list for a

meeting are given above. Speakers

should bring at least 35 copies of their

comments and presentation slides for

distribution to the reviewers and public

at the meeting. Written Comments:

Although the SAB accepts written

comments until the date of the meeting

(unless otherwise stated), because this is

a conference call meeting, any

comments to be mailed to the

Subcommittee in advance of the

meeting should be received in the SAB

Staff Office by noon Monday October

16. Copies in Email format will be

accepted until the day before the

meeting, although earlier submission is

encouraged. Comments should be

supplied to the appropriate DFO at the

address/contact information noted

above in the following formats: fifteen

hard copies, one with original signature,

and one electronic copy via e-mail

(acceptable file format: WordPerfect,

Word, or Rich Text files (in IBM–PC/

Windows 95/98 format)).

General Information—Additional

information concerning the Science

Advisory Board, its structure, function,

and composition, may be found on the

SAB Website (http://www.epa.gov/sab)

and in The FY2000 Annual Report of

the Staff Director which is available

from the SAB Publications Staff at (202)

564–4533 or via fax at (202) 501–0256.

Committee rosters, draft Agendas and

meeting calendars are also located on

our website.

Meeting Access—Individuals

requiring special accommodation at this

meeting, including wheelchair access to

the conference room, should contact Ms.

Winston at least five business days prior

to the meeting so that appropriate

arrangements can be made.

Dated: October 3, 2000.

A. Robert Flaak,

Acting Staff Director, Science Advisory Board.

[FR Doc. 00–25932 Filed 10–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6883–8]

Science Advisory Board; Notification

of Public Advisory Committee Meeting

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory

Committee Act, Public Law 92–463,

notice is hereby given that a Committee

of the US EPA Science Advisory Board

(SAB) will meet on the dates and times

noted below. All times noted are Eastern

Standard Time. The meeting is open to

the public, however, seating is limited

and available on a first come basis.

Important Notice: Documents that are

the subject of SAB reviews are normally

available from the originating EPA office

and are not available from the SAB

Office—information concerning

availability of documents from the

relevant Program Office is included

below.

The Dioxin Reassessment Review

Committee (DRRC) of the US EPA

Science Advisory Board (SAB), will

meet on November 1 and 2, 2000, at the

Ramada Plaza Hotel Pentagon, 4641

Kenmore Avenue, Alexandria, VA. The

hotel telephone number is (703) 751–

4510. The meeting will begin at 8:45

a.m. on November 1 and adjourn no

later than 5 p.m. on November 2.

Purpose of the Meeting

In April 1991, EPA announced that it

would conduct a scientific reassessment

of the potential health risks of exposure

to dioxin and related compounds. The

reassessment led to the publication of a

multi-volume document titled

‘‘Exposure and Human Health

Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-

Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD)

and Related Compounds.’’ The draft of

this document was published in 1994.

In 1995, this draft was reviewed by

EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB),

which issued a report (EPA–SAB–EC–

95–021) with the following major

findings: (a) There was no need for

further SAB review of health and

exposure sections (Chapters 1–7) as long

as EPA updated these sections with any

relevant new information before

finalizing them; (b) EPA should develop

a new chapter on toxicity equivalence

factors (TEFs) to consolidate the

discussion and scientific information on

the use of TEFs for dioxin and related

compounds; (c) the sections addressing

Dose Response Modeling (Chapter 8)

and the Risk Characterization document

(Chapter 9) required revision and

improvement; and (d) the revised

chapters on Dose Response Modeling

and Risk Characterization and the new

chapter on TEFs should undergo

external peer review and then be

brought back to the SAB for another

review.

EPA subsequently revised the

document, and conducted an external

peer review as recommended by the

SAB (please see http://www.epa.gov/

ncea/pdfs/dioxin/final.pdf for a copy of

the peer review). The Agency has now

requested that the SAB review the

revised reassessment document.

Charge to the Committee

The Charge asks the DRRC to respond

to specific questions in the following

areas: (a) Cancer effects; (b) background

and population exposures; (c) children’s

risk; (d) relative risks of breast feeding;

(e) the risk characterization summary

statement; and (f) dioxin sources. The

complete set of 21 Charge Questions,

sorted by category, follows:

Body Burdens

(Question 1) Did EPA adequately

justify its use of body burden as a dose

metric for inter-species scaling? Should

the document present conclusions based

on daily dose?

Use of Margin of Exposure Approach

There are two questions on EPA’s

proposed use of a margin of exposure

(MOE) approach to evaluate dioxinrelated health risks.

(Question 2) Has EPA’s choice of the

MOE approach to risk assessment

adequately considered that background

levels of the dioxins have dropped

dramatically over the past decade, and

are continuing to decline? How might

the rationale be improved for EPA’s

decision not to calculate an RfD/RfC,

and for the recommended MOE

approach for conveying risk

information? Is an MOE approach

appropriate, as compared to the

traditional RfD/RfC? Should the

document present an RfD/RfC?’’

(Question 3) The SAB commented

that previous dose-response modeling

was too limited to biochemical

endpoints (CYPIA1, IA2, * * *). Are

the calculations of a range of ED01 body

burden for noncancer effects in rodents

responsive and clearly presented?

Please comment on the weight of

evidence interpretation of the body

burden data associated with a 1%

response rate for non-cancer effects that

is presented in Chapter 8, Appendix I

and Figure 8–1 (where EPA considers

that the data best support a range

estimate for ED01 body burdens between

10 ng/kg to 50 ng/kg).

Mechanisms and Mode of Action

Two questions concern how the

Integrated Summary addresses the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 10, 2000 / Notices 60191

mechanisms and mode of action of

dioxin toxicity.

(Question 4) How might the

discussion of mode of action of dioxin

and related compounds be improved?

(Question 5) Despite the lack of

congener-specific data, does the

discussion in the Integrated Summary

and Risk Characterization support EPA’s

inference that these effects may occur

for all dioxin-like compounds, based on

the concept of toxicity equivalence?

Toxicity Equivalence Factors

There are two questions that

pertained specifically to the new TEF

Chapter (i.e., Chapter 9) in the dioxin

reassessment.

(Question 6) Is the history, rationale,

and support for the TEQ concept,

including its limitations and caveats,

laid out by EPA in a clear and balanced

way in Chapter 9? Did EPA clearly

describe its rationale for recommending

adoption of the 1998 WHO TEFs?

(Question 7) Does EPA establish clear

procedures for using, calculating, and

interpreting toxicity equivalence

factors?

Non-Cancer Effects

There are two questions regarding

how the Integrated Summary addresses

non-cancer effects.

(Question 8) Have the available

human data been adequately integrated

with animal information in evaluating

likely effect levels for the non-cancer

endpoints discussed in the

reassessment? Has EPA appropriately

defined non-cancer adverse effects and

the body burdens associated with them?

Has EPA appropriately reviewed,

characterized, and incorporated the

recent epidemiological evidence for

non-cancer risk assessment for human

populations?

(Question 9) Do reviewers agree with

the characterization of human

developmental, reproductive,

immunological, and endocrinological

hazard? What, if any, additional

assumptions and uncertainties should

EPA embody in these characterizations

to make them more explicit?

Cancer Effects

There are three questions regarding

how EPA characterized cancer effects in

the Integrated Summary.

(Question 10) Do you agree with the

characterization in this document that

dioxin and related compounds are

carcinogenic hazards for humans? Does

the weight-of-the-evidence support

EPA’s judgement concerning the listing

of environmental dioxins as a likely

human carcinogen?

(Question 11) Does the document

clearly present the evolving approaches

to estimating cancer risk (e.g., margin of

exposure and the LED01 as a point of

departure), as described in the EPA

‘‘Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogenic

Risk Assessment’’ (EPA/600/P–92/003C;

April 1996)? Is this approach equally as

valid for dioxin-like compounds? Has

EPA appropriately reviewed,

characterized, and incorporated the

recent epidemiological evidence for

cancer risk assessment for human

populations?

(Question 12) Please comment on the

presentation of the range of upper

bound risks for the general population

based on this reassessment. What

alternative approaches should be

explored to better characterize

quantitative aspects of potential cancer

risk? Is the range that is given sufficient,

or should more weight be given to

specific data sources?

Background and Population Exposures

There are three questions pertaining

to background and population

exposures to dioxin and related

compounds.

(Question 13) Have the estimates of

background exposures been clearly and

reasonably characterized?

(Question 14) Has the relationship

between estimating exposures from

dietary intake and estimating exposure

from body burden been clearly

explained and adequately supported?

Has EPA adequately considered

available models for the low-dose

exposure-response relationships (linear,

threshold, ‘‘J’’ shaped)?

(Question 15) Have important

‘‘special populations’’ and age-specific

exposures been identified and

appropriately characterized?

Children’s Risk

One question addresses the issue of

children’s risk of dioxin exposure.

(Question 16) Is the characterization

of increased or decreased childhood

sensitivity to possible cancer and noncancer outcomes scientifically

supported and reasonable? Is the weight

of evidence approach appropriate?

Relative Risks of Breast Feeding

(Question 17) Has EPA adequately

characterized how nursing affects shortterm and long-term body burdens of

dioxins and related compounds?

Risk Characterization Summary

Statement

(Question 18) Does the summary and

analysis support the conclusion that

enzyme induction, changes in hormone

levels, and indicators of altered cellular

function seen in humans and laboratory

animals, represent effects of unknown

clinical significance, but they may be

early indicators of toxic response?

(Question 19) Has the short summary

statement in the risk and hazard

characterization on page 107 adequately

captured the important conclusions, and

the areas where further evaluation is

needed? What additional points should

be made in this short statement?

Sources

(Question 20) Are these sources

adequately described and are the

relationships to exposure adequately

explained?

General Comments

(Question 21) Please provide any

other comments or suggestions relevant

to the two review documents, as interest

and time allow.

Availability of Review Materials

The principal review documents (Part

III: Integrated Summary and Risk

Characterization for 2,3,7,8-

Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD)

and Related Compounds; Chapter 8,

Dose-Response Modeling for 2,3,7,8-

Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD)

and Related Compounds; Chapter 9:

Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs) for

Dioxin and Related Compounds; and

Exposure and Health Reassessment of

2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin

(TCDD) and Related Compounds) were

developed by the US EPA’s Office of

Research and Development, National

Center for Environmental Assessment

(ORD/NCEA) and are available on the

Internet at the ORD/NCEA website

(http://www.epa.gov/ncea/dioxin.htm),

or by request to Ms. Linda Tuxen, phone

(202) 564–3332, or by email to

tuxen.linda@epa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any

member of the public wishing further

information concerning this meeting or

wishing to submit brief oral comments

(10 minutes or less) must contact

Samuel Rondberg, Designated Federal

Officer, Science Advisory Board

(1400A), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone

(301) 812–2560, FAX (410) 286–2689; or

via e-mail at samuelr717@aol.com.

Requests for oral comments must be in

writing (e-mail, fax or mail) and

received by Mr. Rondberg no later than

noon (EDT) on Friday, October 20, 2000.

The draft meeting Agenda will be

available approximately three weeks

prior to the meeting on the SAB website

(www.epa.gov/sab) or from Ms. Wanda

Fields, Management Assistant, USEPA

Science Advisory Board (1400A), U.S.

60192 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 10, 2000 / Notices

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20460; telephone (202) 564–4539,

FAX (202) 501–0582; or via e-mail at

fields.wanda@epa.gov.

Providing Oral or Written Comments at

SAB Meetings

It is the policy of the Science

Advisory Board to accept written public

comments of any length, and to

accommodate oral public comments

whenever possible. The Science

Advisory Board expects that public

statements presented at its meetings will

not be repetitive of previously

submitted oral or written statements.

Oral Comments: In general, each

individual or group requesting an oral

presentation at a face-to-face meeting

will be limited to a total time of ten

minutes. For teleconference meetings,

opportunities for oral comment will

usually be limited to no more than three

minutes per speaker and no more than

fifteen minutes total. Deadlines for

getting on the public speaker list for a

meeting are given above. Speakers

should bring at least 35 copies of their

comments and presentation slides for

distribution to the reviewers and public

at the meeting. Written Comments:

Although the SAB accepts written

comments until the date of the meeting

(unless otherwise stated), written

comments should be received in the

SAB Staff Office at least one week prior

to the meeting date so that the

comments may be made available to the

committee for their consideration.

Comments should be supplied to the

appropriate DFO at the address/contact

information noted above in the

following formats: one hard copy with

original signature, and one electronic

copy via e-mail (acceptable file formats:

WordPerfect, Word, or Rich Text files

(in IBM–PC/Windows 95/98 format).

Those providing written comments and

who attend the meeting are also asked

to bring 25 copies of their comments for

public distribution.

General Information

Additional information concerning

the Science Advisory Board, its

structure, function, and composition,

may be found on the SAB Website

(http://www.epa.gov/sab) and in The

FY1999 Annual Report of the Staff

Director which is available from the

SAB Publications Staff at (202) 564–

4533 or via fax at (202) 501–0256.

Committee rosters, draft Agendas and

meeting calendars are also located on

our website.

Meeting Access

Individuals requiring special

accommodation at this meeting,

including wheelchair access to the

conference room, should contact Mr.

Rondberg at least five business days

prior to the meeting so that appropriate

arrangements can be made.

Dated: September 22, 2000.

Donald G. Barnes,

Staff Director, Science Advisory Board.

[FR Doc. 00–25976 Filed 10–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

[DA 00–2253]

Public Safety National Coordination

Committee

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This document advises

interested persons of a meeting of the

Public Safety National Coordination

Committee (‘‘NCC’’), which will be held

in Washington, D.C. The Federal

Advisory Committee Act, Public Law

92–463, as amended, requires public

notice of all meetings of the NCC. This

notice advises interested persons of the

tenth meeting of the Public Safety

National Coordination Committee.

DATES: November 2, 2000 at 9:30 a.m.–

12:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Designated Federal Officer, Michael J.

Wilhelm, (202) 418–0680, e-mail

mwilhelm@fcc.gov. Press Contact,

Meribeth McCarrick, Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau, 202–418–

0600, or e-mail mmccarri@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Following

is the complete text of the Public Notice:

This Public Notice advises interested

persons of the tenth meeting of the

Public Safety National Coordination

Committee (‘‘NCC’’), which will be held

in Washington, D.C. The Federal

Advisory Committee Act, Public Law

92–463, as amended, requires public

notice of all meetings of the NCC.

Date: November 2, 2000.

Meeting Time: General Membership

Meeting—9:30 a.m.–12:30 p.m.

Address: Federal Communications

Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W.,

Commission Meeting Room,

Washington, D.C. 20554.

The NCC Subcommittees will meet

from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. the previous

day. The NCC General Membership

Meeting will commence at 9:30 a.m. and

continue until 12:30 p.m. The agenda

for the NCC membership meeting is as

follows:

1. Introduction and Welcoming

Remarks.

2. Administrative Matters.

3. Report from the Interoperability

Subcommittee.

4. Report from the Technology

Subcommittee.

5. Report from the Implementation

Subcommittee.

6. Public Discussion.

7. Other Business.

8. Upcoming Meeting Dates and

Locations.

9. Closing Remarks.

The FCC has established the Public

Safety National Coordination

Committee, pursuant to the provisions

of the Federal Advisory Committee Act,

to advise the Commission on a variety

of issues relating to the use of the 24

MHz of spectrum in the 764–776/794–

806 MHz frequency bands (collectively,

the 700 MHz band) that has been

allocated to public safety services. See

The Development of Operational,

Technical and Spectrum Requirements

for Meeting Federal, State and Local

Public Safety Agency Communications

Requirements Through the Year 2010

and Establishment of Rules and

Requirements for Priority Access

Service, WT Docket No. 96–86, First

Report and Order and Third Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 98–191, 14

FCC Rcd 152 (1998), 63 FR 58645 (11–

2–98).

The NCC has an open membership.

Previous expressions of interest in

membership have been received in

response to several Public Notices

inviting interested persons to become

members and to participate in the NCC’s

processes. All persons who have

previously identified themselves or

have been designated as a representative

of an organization are deemed members

and are invited to attend. All other

interested parties are hereby invited to

attend and to participate in the NCC

processes and its meetings and to

become members of the Committee.

This policy will ensure balanced

participation. Members of the general

public may attend the meeting. To

attend the tenth meeting of the Public

Safety National Coordination

Committee, please RSVP to Joy Alford

or Bert Weintraub of the Policy and

Rules Branch of the Public Safety and

Private Wireless Division, Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau of the FCC

by calling (202) 418–0680, by faxing