1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

319 

• 


• 


• 


being friendly, the second to last line on that 

first page, referring to the adequacy, I believe 

that the actual wording in EEOICPA is " scientific 

validity and quality • 11 Is that not true? Can 

somebody help me? Is -- were you quoting, Jim, or 

1 -­

DR . MEL IUS : I was paraphrasing but not 

quoting. 

DR. ZIEMER : I think that 11 scientific quality 

and adequacy" are the actual words and I'm 

suggesting that we use that. That's the concept 

for adequacy, but insofar as we can actually quote 

the 

DR. MEL IUS : That would be fine, and also 

while you were out, we gave -- I think it's usual 

these letters -- that you have a final say in 

terms of grammar and style issues, so ... 

DR. ZIEMER: I have another question, also, 

again -- and maybe this will also be within the 

prerogative of the working thing . Were you 

quoting from section 42 USC 738 -- 3874(q)? Have 

you confirmed that that is the exact -- it is in 

quotes in your letter. 

DR . MEL IUS : (Off microphone) I believe it 

(Inaudible) . 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

320 

• 


• 


• 


DR. ZIEMER: We ll, in any event, where we're 

q u otin g exactly, I will ma ke sure that we quote it 

exactly. 

The other comment I had was in the second to 

last paragraph, '' Procedures for Designing (sic) 

Classes of Employees '' and so on, I wonder if it 

would be good Lo expand that to include the -­

well, in the second senten ce you have the dates of 

the rulemaking and tn the first sentence we don't 

-- we just have the year. I was going lo suggest 

that we add in there the month of the issuing of 

the rulemaking and the dates of the comment period 

in both sentences . You h a ve it in the one but not 

the other. 

DR. MELIUS: I didn't have 

DR . ZIEMER: T'll dig that out. If you're 

agreed , we'll just add those. 

DR. MELIUS: That's fine. 

DR. ZIEMER: Are there any other -- yes, Gen 

Roessler. 

DR. ROESSLER: Mine is grammatical and I 

probably shouldn ' t even bring it up, but I want to 

remind the Chair -- and I'm sure that as an 

academic person who deals wi th dangling 

participles so well that he'll recognize that a 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

321 

• 


• 


• 


Board the Advisory Board is an "it " , not an 

"our" or not "us" . 

DR . ZIEMER: I've already changed my copies. 

DR . ROESSLER: You marked al-- thank you. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes. Tony and Robert. 

DR. ANDRADE: Okay, one final proposed 

amendment, and that is to change wording such that 

we can combine the last t wo s h ort paragraphs, as 

follows . We start with " Potentially eligible" and 

we continue on with "classes of workers " et 

cetera, and keep the rest of that small paragraph 

as is. And then at the end of that paragraph, 

append "Hence, we" and then follow through with 

the last part of the last paragraph, so it would 

read "Hence, we urge you to finalize the Special 

Exposure Cohort rule" et cetera, et cetera. In 

other words , we'd take out the piece that, again ­

DR. ZIEMER: This is the delay issue again. 

DR. ANDRADE: The delay issue . 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. I guess if that was 

friendly before, it's still friendly. Is that 

the 

DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I have no objection to 

taking that out. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

322 

• 


• 


• 


DR. ANDRADE: That is my -­

DR. ZIEMER: Agree to that change? 

DR. ANDRADE: Right . 

DR . ZIEMER: Hence -- h ence , t h e Board -­

DR . ANDRADE: The Board -­

DR. ZIEMER: -- urges you . . Thank you. Are 

there any further friendly or unfriendly 

a me n d ments? 

(No responses) 

Are you ready to vote on this proposed 

lette r ? You appear to be ready to vote -- pardon 

me? 

UNIDENT I FIED: (Off microphone) (Inaudible) 

second . 

DR. ZIEMER: It was secon ded origin ally 

before it went on the table, so -- right . 

Okay, all in favor say aye. 

(Affirmative responses) 

Any opposed , no. 

(No responses) 

Any abstentions? 

(No respon ses) 

The ayes have it, and we will prepare the 

final letter and copies will be distributed, as 

well, to the Board . Thank you. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

323 

• 


• 


• 


Several of you asked for copies of the letter 

that was sent to me by three members of Congress . 

Who didn't -- these were distributed at our last 

meeting, but some of you needed copies. Cori 

will 

DR. MELIUS: (Off microphone) Actually 

(Inaudible} Cori my original of that. 

DR. ZIEMER: Cori will distribute those. 

(Pause) 

DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 

(Pause) 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And did you distribute a 

copy of my response? 

MS. HOMER: Yes. 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay . 

MR. ELLIOTT: Your response went to all three 

senators on an individual letterhead 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

MR. ELLIOTT: -- but we only passed out -­

think Cori only passed out the one to Ms. 

Slaughter. 

DR. ZIEMER: They were all identical and just 

the names were changed. The last paragraph 

indicates that similar responses went to the other 

two Representatives, and then I also sent this, as 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

324 

• 


• 


• 


well as copy of the original letter, to Secretary 

Thompson. Okay? So -­ any comments or questions 

on that letter? 

DR. MELIUS: I guess I would like - ­ first of 

a l l, I'd like to try to work out some procedure so 

we understand how these letters will be handled . 

Wh en I -- as I recalled the last meeting and 

c h ecked back to the transcript, we talked about 

that you were going to consult -- the Chair was 

going to consult with NIOSH about these issues and 

then share with us what was going to happen, and 

it was - - the "share" was vague, but I was at 

least expecting to get a copy of what was being 

sent . And if there were policy or other issues 

related to the Board, that the Board would be 

consulted in some way on addressing these, that 

this -- and frankly, I don't completely understand 

wha t your response was and -- do that , so I think 

in t h e -- guess what I would ask in the future is 

that when these letters come in that we spend some 

time sort of being more specific about what the 

follow-up 1s. 'Cause I'm not trying to fault you 

in that sense, 'cause 

DR. ZIEMER: No, I appreciate that. 


DR . MELIUS: - - we might have misunderstood 


NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

325 

1

• 2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

• 

13 

11 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

• 


that, but also that if there are policy or other 

issues that are raised by this that affect -- that 

are on behalf of the Board, then I think the Board 

needs to talk about them and have some input into 

them. 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you for that comment. 

was vague at the last meeting 'cause I had only 

just received the letter and seen it on the way 

in, and I wanted to have a chance to kind of macch 

it against our stated responsibilities. We were, 

in a sense, being asked to do some things that 

were sort of what I would classify as being 

mandated by a Congressional group to do certain 

tasks. Our charge comes else-- Erom from a -­

both the President and from our charter . And so 

basically, after having laid the letter side-byside with our stated responsibilities, I simply 

it appeared to me that the first effort to, if 

there were issues, had to go to the Agency. 

Congress, I think, can direct in fact probably 

agencies to do those sorts of things. But in any 

event, officially to transmit their concerns to 

the Agency, and then secondly to let them know 

what we were doing in the way of audit procedures. 

We're being asked to specifically do an audit 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

326 

• 


• 


• 


where we didn't even have procedures in place. 

Our selection of what we audit has to be based on 

the principles that we develop and not necessarily 

simply audit when - - when Congress asks us to, 

unless they wish to change the legislation. But 

that was the nature -- I don'~ think that I sec 

any policy in responding . I simply told them what 

we were doing, that as we developed the audit 

procedures that we will ask the Agency to share 

them with - - with them. So that ' s the response 

I wasn't -- I get a number of letters from 

individuals on a variety of things. If they're 

addressed to me personally and not the Board, then 

I respond to them. I do not try to act on behalf 

of the Board in terms of changing anything or 

setting any policy. I just told them what we're 

doing. That was my response. But I'd be glad to 

if the Board wishes, on these kinds of things, 

to see the response in advance, I'm glad to do 

that, too . I don't have any problem with that. 

DR. MELIUS: Again, speaking personally, 

think when -- I think we've talked about this 

before, there are letters that come in from 

individual claimants . They may come to you, they 

may come to the entire Board, and I think we've 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 

I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

327 

I 

• 


• 


• 


discussed some of the pitfalls of those as well as 

being discreet in how we handle them in terms of 

response and so forth and those I have concern-­

think when we get a letter from someone in 

Congress to the Advisory Board clearly asking the 

Advisory Board to do something, that thaL ought to 

be something we -- we discuss, or at least be 

informed about the response, that if you're 

someone in Congress, you read Lhe law and the law 

clearly says that we are going to be reviewing 

dose reconstructions and so forth. And so I think 

you at least, from reading the law, it would be 

appropriate for them to turn to us and ask us to 

do that. And certainly the request was made on 

behalf of their constituents from the -- you know, 

it wasn't the-- their whim and I don't think it 

was a issue of, you know, what the Execulive was 

or was not doing. You know, these are two 

Republicans and a Democrat that -- thal wrote this 

letter. 

I also think that in the response at least 

I would have preferred you indicating at least 

giving a little bit better - - more of an update on 

where we were in this process. IL wasn't just 

that NIOSH would -- or HHS would communicate 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

328 

• 


• 


• 


procedures, but that we were actually -- you know, 

at that time were in the process of awarding 

contract and taking up the -- to review site 

profiles, as well as individual dose 

reconstructions and that we would be making a 

selection. Now whether or not we take their 

desire in account in making that selection I think 

is, you know, something we could discuss. But in 

several ways it -- it ' s moot now after the 

previous actions we've taken this morning, but 

guess I get a little worried that if we defer too 

much to NIOSH that we're implying that NIOSH or 

HHS is entirely in control of this process and 

that that has implications in terms of the 

independence of our review. And we I think our 

charge to review is when Congress set this up 

was for an independent revjew related to certain 

parameters of the dose reconstruction and thal we 

need to be careful thal when we commun icate that 

we convey that we are doing an independent review 

and that -- us and then that NIOSH is well aware 

of that and I think supportive of -- of the need 

for the credibility of that that process. 

DR . ZIEMER : I thoughc the second paragraph 

basically said that, but maybe not in the words 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 

I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

329 

• 


• 


• 


others would have used, but -- yeah. And at that 

point I wasn't prepared to give them a timetable 

'cause we were still in flux. I simply said we 

are in the process . But thank you for those 

comments. 

Other comments? Tony? 

DR. ANDRADE: Paul, perhaps -- perhaps we 

should set a bar. The original legislation for 

EEOICPA was developed by Congressmen, even with 

great participation from Congressmen from my 

state, and it seems like although we shouldn't 

respond to the specific tasking that -- or not 

necessarily respond to the specific tasking that 

comes about because it -- this can become a 

circus . Okay? This can set a bad precedent if we 

were to do so . I think that what -- the bar or 

the threshold that I'm talking about may be that 

if there are Congressional communications that go 

to you or to others on the Board, that we share 

those and that we discuss those before and 

perhaps the Board get together and collectively 

put a -- an appropriate response together. 

DR . ZIEMER: I certainly -- be glad to do 

that . Others want to weigh in on this? 

DR. ANDERS ON: I think it's a -- it was a 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES