Document 9JxBeav6M9jMOkemz9Oo38mKV

..> Y O THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION, Inc. 1790 Broadway ' New York 19, N.Y. March 7, 1961 Mr. Fred R. Ingram 90 Panoramic Way Walnut Creek, California ' Dear Fred: Thanks for your recent letter concerning the revision of "Occupational Lead Exposure and Lead Poisoning". As you know, the Committee on Evaluation and Standards has the general responsibility of reviewing technical reports such as this Lead report to determine when revisions may be necessary. On the other hand, the committee has also adopted the policy of encouraging other committees and the Sections to prepare reports and revise existing reports rather than having that all done under the direct supervision of 3&S. The Lead report is actually a report of the Section. It could be revised b y the Section and published as a Sectional report if that seemed desirable. The Committee on Evaluation and Standards will have a meeting sometime in May. Your comments with regard to the Lead report will be transmitted to the committee. It would be ray guess that the committee would then instruct me to write to you as chairman of the Section urging that a revision of the report be undertaken. Do you see any objection to such a recommendation? Do you have any suggestion as to a contrary action that might be taken so that when your report is presented such a recommendation could be included and thereby possibly forestall some other action that wouldn't be as productive of results? Actually it seems to me that it would be a logical activity for the Section to undertake. If the Section felt that the information available on lead exposure was stabilized to such an extent that it would be desirable to recommend publica tion of the report as a fully accredited APHA report, then the Section could so recommend. That would mean /<- 0009135 N9929 Page two that E&S would than review it and pass its recommen dation on to the Governing Council. Vvhether there is any particular advantage in asking that the report be published as an official APHA document rather than as a report of one of the Sections, I am not sure. It seems to me that with-a technical report of this sort, the most important consideration is the qualifi cation of the committee that prepared the report rather than the nature of the organizations that may endorse it later on. I shall appreciate your viewpoints on this. Thanks. Sincerely, Prank (signed) Francis B. Elder, M.S.P.H. Engineering Associate K 0009136