Opinion ID: 390180
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Public Comments

Text: 25 The public comment period ran from December 14, 1977 to March 17, 1978, and public hearings on the proposed standards were held on February 15 and 16, 1978. 43 Fed.Reg. 46246, JA 2948. The comments on the proposed standards were sharply divided. The comments submitted by the lead industry and its experts uniformly opposed the proposed standards, and many endorsed a standard of 5 ug Pb/m 3, the standard proposed in the discredited first draft of the Criteria Document, see note 7 supra, as adequate to protect the public health. 43 Fed.Reg. 46248, JA 2950. On the other hand, environmental groups, medical experts, and state, local, and federal agencies either endorsed the proposed standards or called for even stricter standards. Id. None of the comments seriously questioned the selection of children between the ages of 1 and 5 years as the target population group, or the estimate of a contribution from non-air sources of 12 ug Pb/dl. The major areas of controversy were the Administrator's choice of EP elevation as the pivotal adverse health effect and his conclusion that the threshold blood lead level for EP elevation in children is 15 ug Pb/dl, the selection of an appropriate air lead/blood lead ratio, the appropriate allowance for an adequate margin of safety, and the averaging time period for the standards. Id. 19 26 A number of comments challenged the selection of EP elevation as the pivotal adverse health effect, insisting that EP elevation merely indicates a biological change or response which is in no way harmful to health, 20 and in addition they criticized the Administrator's determination that the blood lead threshold for EP elevation in children is 15 ug Pb/dl. 21 These comments suggested that a decrease in hemoglobin levels, which begins at blood lead levels no lower than 40 ug Pb/dl, should be the pivotal adverse health effect on which the standards are based. 22 Other experts, however, agreed with the Administrator's conclusion that EP elevation must be considered an adverse health effect of lead exposure, and argued that using EP elevation as the pivotal adverse health effect would, in addition, allow an adequate margin of safety in protecting against the more serious health effects associated with higher levels of lead exposure. 23 Finally, several industry experts appeared to indicate a preference for the lognormal statistical procedures that the Administrator had, in the proposed standards, suggested as an alternative method for determining the target mean population blood lead level. 24