Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 14 /Thursday, January 22, 1998 / Notices 3311

specific type and frequency of behavior

that a child exposed to a product will

exhibit depends on the age of the child

and the characteristics and pattern of

use of the product. The adverse health

effects of lead poisoning in children are

well-documented and may have longlasting or permanent consequences.

These effects include neurological

damage, delayed mental and physical

development, attention and learning

deficiencies, and hearing problems.

Because lead accumulates in the body,

even exposures to small amounts of lead

can contribute to the overall level of

lead in the blood and to the subsequent

risk of adverse health effects. Therefore,

any unnecessary exposure of children to

lead should be avoided. The scientific

community generally recognizes a level

of 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of

blood as a threshold level of concern

with respect to lead poisoning. To avoid

exceeding that level, young children

should not chronically ingest more than

15 micrograms of lead per day from

consumer products.

Guidance

Under the Federal Hazardous

Substances Act (FHSA), 15 U.S.C.

1261(f)(1), household products that

expose children to hazardous quantities

of lead under reasonably foreseeable

conditions of handling or use are

‘‘hazardous substances.’’ A household

product that is not intended for children

but which creates such a risk of injury

because it contains lead requires

precautionary labeling under the Act. 15

U.S.C. 1261(p). A toy or other article

intended for use by children which

contains a hazardous amount of lead

that is accessible for children to ingest

is a banned hazardous substance. 15

U.S.C. 1261(q)(1)(B). In evaluating the

potential hazard associated with

products that contain lead, the

Commission staff considers these major

factors on a case-by-case basis: the total

amount of lead contained in a product,

the bioavailability of the lead, the

accessibility of the lead to children, the

age and foreseeable behavior of the

children exposed to the product, the

foreseeable duration of the exposure,

and the marketing, patterns of use, and

life cycle of the product.

Paint and similar surface coatings

containing lead have historically been

the most commonly-recognized sources

of lead poisoning among the products

within the Commission’s jurisdiction.

The Commission has, by regulation,

banned (1) paint and other similar

surface coatings that contain more than

0.06% lead (‘‘lead-containing paint’’),

(2) toys and other articles intended for

use by children that bear leadcontaining paint, and (3) furniture

articles for consumer use that bear leadcontaining paint. 16 CFR part 1303. In

recent years, however, the Commission

staff has identified a number of

disparate products—some intended for

use by children and others simply used

in or around the household or in

recreation—that presented a risk of lead

poisoning from sources other than paint.

These products included vinyl

miniblinds, crayons, figurines used as

game pieces, and children’s jewelry.

In several of these cases, the staff’s

determination that the products

presented a risk of lead poisoning

resulted in recalls or in the replacement

of those products with substitutes, in

addition to an agreement to discontinue

the use of lead in future production. The

Commission believes that, had the

manufacturers of these lead-containing

products acted with prudence and

foresight before introducing the

products into commerce, they would

not have used lead at all. This in turn

would have eliminated both the risk to

young children and the costs and other

consequences associated with the

corrective actions.

The Commission urges manufacturers

to eliminate lead in consumer products

to avoid similar occurrences in the

future. However, to avoid the possibility

of a Commission enforcement action, a

manufacturer who believes it necessary

to use lead in a consumer product

should perform the requisite analysis

before distribution to determine

whether the exposure to lead causes the

product to be a ‘‘hazardous substance.’’

If the product is a hazardous substance

and is also a children’s product, it is

banned. If it is a hazardous household

substance but is not intended for use by

children, it requires precautionary

labeling. This same type of analysis also

should be performed on materials

substituted for lead.

The Commission also notes that,

under the FHSA, any firm that

purchases a product for resale is

responsible for determining whether

that product contains lead and, if so,

whether it is a ‘‘hazardous substance.’’

The Commission, therefore,

recommends that, prior to the

acquisition or distribution of such

products, importers, distributors, and

retailers obtain information and data,

such as analyses of chemical

composition or accessibility, relevant to

this determination from manufacturers,

or have such evaluations conducted

themselves.

Dated: January 15, 1998.

Sadye E. Dunn,

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety

Commission.

[FR Doc. 98–1456 Filed 1–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY

COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, January 28,

1998, 10:00 a.m.

LOCATION: Room 420, East West Towers,

4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda,

Maryland.

STATUS: Open to the Public.

MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED:

Bicycle Helmets

The Commission will consider

options for a final safety standard for

bicycle helmets.

For a recorded message containing the

latest agenda information, call (301)

504–0709.

CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL

INFORMATION: Sadye E. Dunn, Office of

the Secretary, 4330 East-West Highway,

Bethesda, MD 20207 (301) 504–0800.

Dated: January 20, 1998.

Sadye E. Dunn,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–1665 Filed 1–20–98; 2:25 pm]

BILLING CODE 6355–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army, Corps of

Engineers

Public Notice of Availability of the

Draft Supplemental Environmental

Impact Statement for the Limited

Reevaluation Study for the Deepening

of the Arthur Kill-Howland Hook Marine

Terminal Navigation Channels

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

DoD.

ACTION: Correction.

SUMMARY: In previous Federal Register

notice (Vol. 62, No. 196, pages 52698–

52699) Thursday, October 9, 1997, make

the following correction:

On page 52698, in column 3, line 34,

the sentence ‘‘Comments will be

accepted for forty-five (45) days after

publishing of this notice.’’ should be

deleted. Unfortunately, the DSEIS,

previously experienced publishing

delays which resulted in the document

not being readily available for public

comment at the time when the previous
3312 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 14 /Thursday, January 22, 1998 / Notices

notice was published in the Federal

Register. The DSEIS however, is not

available for public review and

comment. The revised comment period

will commence on the publication date

of this notice for forty five (45) days and

end on the date indicated below.

DATES: Comments must be received not

later than March 9, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The DSEIS may be obtained

from the Army Corps of Engineers,

Planning Division, 26 Federal Plaza,

New York, NY 10278–0090.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Jenine Gallo, Project Biologist, CENAN–

PL–EA, Corps of Engineers, New York

District, 26 Federal Plaza, NY, NY

10278–0090, Tel. 212–264–4549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None.

Gregory D. Showalter,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 98–1488 Filed 1–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–06–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army; Corps of

Engineers

Notice of Addendum to the Atlantic

Coast of Long Island, From Fire Island

Inlet to Montauk Point, New York

(Reach 1-Fire Island Inlet to Moriches

Inlet Interim Plan for Storm Damage

Protection)

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

DoD.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

SUMMARY: In previous Federal Register

notice (Vol. 62, No. 228, pages 63134–

63135) Wednesday, November 26, 1997,

subject notice was published to provide

an opportunity for public comment

during the public scoping phase of the

project. Based on comments received by

this office, certain changes are required

to the document and are provided in the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION paragraph.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Stephen A. Couch, Study Manager,

(212) 264–9077; Mr. Peter M. Weppler,

EIS Coordinator, (212) 264–4663;

Planning Division, Corps of Engineers,

New York District, 26 Federal Plaza,

New York, New York 10278–0090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On page

63134, in column 3, last paragraph,

revise Section 1 to read:

1. Location of Proposed Action

The project area is located entirely in

Suffolk County, Long Island, New York,

along the Atlantic and bay-shore of the

towns of Babylon, Islip, and Bookhaven.

The study area includes Great South

Bay, which is connected to the Atlantic

Ocean through Fire Island Inlet, a

federal navigation channel. Great South

Bay is connected to Moriches Bay by a

narrow channel behind the barrier

island. The westernmost portion of the

study area, Fire Island Inlet, is located

approximately 52 miles by water east of

the Battery, New York. The project area

includes the Atlantic Ocean and Great

South Bay, Fire Island, Moriches Inlet,

barrier beaches, the mainland of Long

Island fronted by Fire Island, as well as

suitable offshore borrow areas that will

supply material for beach construction

and replenishment. The study area is

approximately 30 miles long. The lands

and waters within the proposed project

area are owned by various interests and

are subject to various uses. The Federal

Government (Department of the Interior,

National Park Service (NPS)) has

jurisdiction over approximately 26

miles of the area included within the

boundaries of the Fire Island National

Seashore (FINS). The New York State

government has jurisdiction over Robert

Moses State Park (Office of Parks,

Recreation and Historic Preservation),

tidal waters (bays) (Department of

Environmental Conservation) and

submerged lands offshore to the threemile limit (Department of State). The

Suffolk County government (Department

of Parks and Recreation) has jurisdiction

over county parks located at Smith

Point and Moriches Inlet. Most of the

remaining land is held by private

landowners located in Towns of

Babylon, Brookhaven, and Islip and

Villages of Ocean Beach and Saltaire.

There are 17 ‘‘exempted’’ and 3

Seashore District (non-exempted)

communities within the boundaries of

FINS. An exempted community is one

that is defined by the 1964 FINS

Enabling Legislation (Pub. L. 88–587),

and described by the Federal Zoning

Regulations, 36 CFR part 28, as falling

within the boundaries of the

Community Development District. The

Seashore District is comprised of all

portions of the lands and waters within

the boundary of FINS, which are not

included in the Community

Development District, comprising all

private and public developments. The

improved private properties in either

district are exempted from the

acquisition authority of the Secretary of

the Interior, as long as the development

conforms to all local and federal zoning

requirements at the time of

construction. There are five NPS

facilities on Fire Island under the

jurisdiction of FINS. They are: the

Lighthouse Area, Sunken Forest/Sailors

Haven, Talisman, Watch Hill, and Smith

Point.

On page 63135, in column 1, first

paragraph, revise Section 2 to read:

2. Description of Potential Interim

Alternatives

No Federal Action

The No Federal Action alternative for

this proposed project means that no

interim measures would be taken by the

Federal government to provide storm

damage protection in the study area.

Other entities (State and local agencies,

private interests, etc.) could undertake

measures intended to prevent or

minimize further storm damage and the

Federal Government could proceed with

the Reformulation Study. For evaluation

of the interim project, the No-Action

alternative recognizes that the Breach

Contingency Plan is in place, and that

any breach of the barrier island that may

occur within this area would be closed

using the authority provided by the

Breach Contingency Plan.

3. Non-Structural Alternatives

Buy-Out Plan/Land Use Regulations/

Flood-Proofing

A buyout plan would include the

permanent evacuation of areas within

the floodplain subject to erosion or

inundation, including the mainland and

barrier island. This would involve the

acquisition of land and structures either

by purchase or by exercising the power

of eminent domain. Following this

action, structures in the affected areas

could be demolished or relocated. Other

potential land use regulations may

include a range of management

techniques, including zoning,

subdivision regulations, building codes,

and setback ordinances. Other floodproofing strategies include raising

structures or providing walls or

floodshields around structures, in

addition to relocations.

4. Beach Nourishment Alternatives

Beach nourishment involves the

placement of sand extracted from an

offshore borrow source onto an eroding

shoreline to restore its form and to

provide an adequate protective beach. A

beach fill plan typically includes a berm

(that slopes to the sea floor) backed by

a dune. Together, the dune and the berm

combine to prevent erosion and

inundation damages to leeward areas.

Beach nourishment requires the

periodic placement of sand to offset

erosion of the beach fill in order to

maintain the designed level of

protection.