Document LJaj16MMNQp47qR42q2ND5Bjd

4 /< r'abruof* <5, 1973 r\po Memorandum far Ad Hoc Committee and Other Intereired Parries Subfecr: Lead in Pa inf Ref. (a) FDA Proposed Exemption of Certain Lead-Containing Points ond Other Similar Surface-Coating Moteriols f37 P R. 25849) 1 . At you oil ore oware, the comment period on reference to) terminated on February 3rd. I am pleated to report that approximately one hunared comments were filed by industry in support of this proposal Most of these were welt written and, in my opinion, very helpful However, I must report also that four adverse commcnrs were filed prior to rhe deadline date -- by the Environmental Defense Fund, rhe Consumers Union, Bess Myeraon (Commissioner, New York City Department of Consumer AfFoint ond by Professor Page ana Anthony Young. (Copy of the latter enclosed FYl ) 2. You also are aware that, in spite of oil our efforts. Senator Kennedy introduced S. 607 on January 29th (providing for the .06% level effective after Oecember 31, 1973) and moved it through his Subcommittee rhe nexr day without hearings. We're working on rhe full Cammirtee (Senate Labor and Public Welfares, but chances of favoroole amenamcnr ore remote. A number of similot bills hove been introduced on the House side aUo but, most encouraging, we now have an indusrry bill (H.R. 3743 -introduced by Rep. Lawrence Williams (Republican, 7rh District of Pennsylvania) -- which reflects rhe amendments approved by rhe House Banking ond Currency Com mittee lair year and alio provides for rhe research by HEW. 3. Similar proposals ar the state and local level are mounting. While I have just received an encouraging report from Ed O'Toole that industry efforts may have succeeded in obtaining an amartdmanr (from .06% to .5%) In on Illinois bill (S. 003), rha Detroit Ciry Council moots on February 19th on a proposed ordinance very similar to the one in Chicago, but also extended to includa exterior household products. A bill (Assembly Bill 3139) -- introduced by William M. Stoinfoldt in New York -- <IN ftfcMt ItftM iteove nw ITN*f*(UI-N71 0007--SWP--036725 2 would ejroeliin o .05% level in fhot rtore; onother in Penn*vlvonio 1'House Bill 811 would imooie a .06% standard on oil paint procuen or rne ena of rhis year. We're working on rhese and others. 4. We now have finalized a "Model Ordinance" (reviewed and bierted, but nor yet officially approved, by HEW and HUD) which is being made available ro rhote cities (and states) known to be contemplating such action. It helped recently in Burlington, Iowa. Wanted you to know of its existence. 5. Obviously, the subject of lead in paint still it a major issue and, I understand! continues to be of vital concern to mast manufacturers. Also FDA action on .06 .. frcent remains unresolved. After reviewing all these developments with Bab Ackerly, Outside Counsel on the It ' issue, we conclude that it would be beneficial ta have another meeting in Washington soon - to review the general situation and discuss tactics, particularly with respect te the new issue (Environmental Impact Statement) raised by Page et all Your comments on the above -- by telephone and/or letter -- are needed. 6. For your information, the labeling Committee is scheduled te meet in Washington (at the Gramercy Inn) on March 14 and IS, 1973, commencing at 2:00 P.M. on Wednesday, March 14th. Since several addressees plan re be in Washington for that meeting, it has been suggested that this group (interested parties) might meet on the morning of March 14th. let's keep that date open if it should be agreed that a meeting is in order and if we can afford ta wait four weeks to hold such a meeting. Sincerely, (I'd* *i InUn M Manrnon.ru * y John M. Montgomery y General Counsel ^ JMM:rw End it eJ 0007-SWP-036726