Flexible Approaches to Environmental Measurement-The Evolution of the Performance Approach, 36198-36200 [E9-17402]
Download as PDF
36198
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 22, 2009 / Notices
interpreted and managed in the studies
that support the model.
6. Refinements of the model related to
absorption, tissue distribution, and
metabolism were accomplished, or
suitably explained, including the role of
extrahepatic metabolism as it impacts
the model dose metrics and route-toroute extrapolation; appreciably
improving prior PBPK models of EDC.
It is EPA’s decision that the HAP Task
Force can proceed with the Tier II
Testing under the schedule set forth in
Table 1. of this Federal Register
document.
TABLE 1.—REQUIRED TESTING, TEST STANDARDS, AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR EDC
Testing segment
Required testing
.
Tier II testing and/or extrapolation reporting
Test standard
Deadline for final report1 (months)
Subchronic toxicity route-to-route
extrapolation of dose-response
(oral Tier II testing to inhalation)
of a study reported by Daniel, et
al., (1994)
ECA appendix C.2 and C.6
12
Subchronic neurotoxicity (oral)
40 CFR 799.9620 (as annotated in
ECA appendix D.2)
18
Subchronic neurotoxicity route-toroute extrapolation of dose-response (oral Tier II testing to inhalation)
ECA appendix C.3 and C.6
21
Reproductive toxicity (oral)
40 CFR 799.9380 (as annotated in
ECA appendix D.3)
25
Reproductive toxicity route-to-route
extrapolation of dose-response
(oral data to inhalation, including
Tier II testing and extant studies
reported by Alumot, et al.,
(1976), Rao, et al., (1980), and
Lane, et al., (1982))
ECA appendix C.4 and C.6
28
.
.
.
.
1Number of months after the date of publication of this Federal Register document, which announces that EPA has concluded the EPA Program Review, when the final report is due. In addition, every 6 months from the effective date of the Order until the end of the ECA testing program, interim reports describing the status of all testing to be performed under this ECA must be submitted by the Companies to EPA.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
III. References
1. D’Souza, R.W., Francis, W.R., Bruce
R.D., and Andersen, M.E.
Physiologically based pharmacokinetic
model for ethylene dichloride and its
application in risk assessment. P. 286–
301, In: Pharmacokinetics in Risk
Assessment. National Academy Press.
Washington, D.C. (1987).
2. D’Souza, R.W., Francis, W.R., and
Andersen, M.E. Physiological model for
tissue glutathione depletion and
increased resynthesis after ethylene
dichloride exposure. Journal of
Pharmacology and Experimental
Therapeutics. 245(2):563–568. (1988).
3. EPA, Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances,
Chemical Control Division. Letter from
Jim Willis, Director, CCD to Dr. Peter
Voytek, HAP Task Force. RE: EPA Tier
I Program Review for EDC. January 10,
2007.
4. EPA and HAP Task Force.
Technical Consultation Meeting on 1, 2Ethylene Dichloride Program Review.
February 12, 2007.
5. HAP Task Force. Letter from Peter
E. Voytek, Manager, HAP Task Force to
Jim Willis, Director, Chemical Control
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:04 Jul 21, 2009
Jkt 217001
Division, Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics, with Enclosure: Response to
Issues Raised in EPA’s Tier 1 Data
Evaluation Meeting. May 23, 2007.
6. Sweeny, L. M. and Gargas, M.I.
Physiologically based pharmacokinetic
model development and simulations for
ethylene dichloride (1,2-dichlorethane)
in rats. Prepared by the Sapphire Group,
Dayton Ohio for the HAP Task Force,
Millwood, Virginia. Revised Draft
Report. March 11, 2009.
7. Sweeny, L. M., Saghir, S. A., and
Gargas, M.I. Physiologically based
pharmacokinetic model development
and simulations for ethylene dichloride
(1,2-dichlorethane) in rats. Regulatory
Toxicology and Pharmacology. 51:311–
323. (2008).
8. EPA. Email from Rob Dewoskin,
PhD, DABT, US EPA/NCEA (National
Center for Environmental Assessment)
to John Schaeffer. Review of Final report
- EDC ECA Program Review Completion.
April 22, 2009.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection, 1,2Ethylene Dichloride, EDC, Hazardous
chemicals.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: July 10, 2009.
Jim Willis,
Director, Chemical Control Division, Office
of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. E9–17170 Filed 7–21–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–ORD; FRL–8930–3]
Flexible Approaches to Environmental
Measurement—The Evolution of the
Performance Approach
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Assuring the quality of
environmental measurements is
essential to the implementation of the
Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA’s or the Agency’s) environmental
programs, both regulatory and
voluntary. In an October 6, 1997, Notice
of Intent (FRL–5903–2), the Agency
outlined a ‘‘Performance Based
Measurement System (PBMS)’’ concept
E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM
22JYN1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 22, 2009 / Notices
which was expected to ‘‘* * * have the
overall effect of improving data quality
and encouraging advancement of
analytical technologies.’’ EPA has
recently revisited the 1997 concept,
gauged the Agency’s progress towards
achieving its goals, and redefined steps
needed to ensure continued progress.
The Agency has determined that
while specifying performance criteria in
a manner that is independent of
methods, techniques, or instruments
may be possible, developing a single
protocol for the validation of these
measurements that could be applied to
all measurements, including
measurements made with techniques
yet to be invented, may not be possible.
Accordingly, EPA is introducing
principles that reflect flexible
approaches to environmental
measurement. These principles capture
the Agency’s experience of the past ten
years, set the stage for future progress in
improving data quality, and encourage
the advancement of environmental
measurement technologies.
Key goals for this flexible approach
are as follows: Increased emphasis on
flexibility when choosing sampling and
analytical approaches to meet regulatory
requirements for measurements;
development of processes for validation
to confirm measurements meet quality
requirements; increased collaboration
with stakeholders to develop validation
processes for new measurement
technology; and timely assessment of
new or modified technologies, methods,
and procedures.
The purpose of this notice is to
provide the public with an up-to-date
communication on the Agency’s
progress to Flexible Measurement—The
Evolution of the Performance Approach.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
specific information regarding this
notice, contact Lara Autry,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of the Science Advisor, E243–05,
109 TW Alexander Drive, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709; telephone
number: 919–541–5544; fax number:
919–541–4261; e-mail address:
autry.lara@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Forum on Environmental Measurements
(FEM) is a standing committee of senior
EPA mangers established to develop
policies to guide the EPA measurement
community in validating and
disseminating methods for
environmental monitoring; for ensuring
that monitoring studies are scientifically
rigorous, statistically sound, and yield
representative data; and for employing a
quality systems approach that ensures
that the data gathered and used by the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:04 Jul 21, 2009
Jkt 217001
Agency is of known and documented
quality. The Forum was established to
promote consistency and consensus
within the EPA on measurement issues.
Historically, most EPA programs have
specified required analytical methods to
be used by the regulated community in
the analysis of environmental samples
for regulatory compliance purposes.
EPA has published its methods in
regulations and a number of compendia,
such as ‘‘Manual of Methods for
Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes’’ and ‘‘Methods for the
Determination of Organic Compounds
in Drinking Water.’’ The requirement to
use specific analytical methods for
compliance purposes is one of several
means for assuring appropriate
consistency and reliability in
environmental monitoring.
In certain instances, in order to
provide regulated parties with the
flexibility to use alternative methods,
EPA programs have established
administrative processes by which the
public could submit a proposed method
for Agency review and approval. Before
alternative methods are used in
regulatory compliance applications,
EPA’s regulations require that such
methods be approved by the Agency
through formal rulemaking.
In past instances, the approval
processes have been lengthy. For
example, in some cases, the approval
process took several years to receive
consent for a proposed method or
method modification after the Agency
completed its evaluation. The approach
of specifying required methods and
approving new methods was identified
as a major barrier to using innovative
monitoring technology. In order to
address these concerns, EPA’s former
Environmental Monitoring Management
Council (EMMC) established a work
group of scientists representing EPA’s
Headquarters and Regional offices to
consider the advisability for establishing
a performance-based approach to
specifying analytical testing
requirements. Based on the work
group’s recommendations in 1997, the
Agency announced its intent to
incorporate the PBMS approach, to the
extent feasible, into its programs.
At the same time, the Agency
intended that PBMS would provide the
regulated community with flexibility in
conducting required environmental
monitoring, expedite the use of new and
innovative techniques, and result in less
costly approaches to conducting
required monitoring and measurements.
Under PBMS, the Agency envisioned
that this approach would continue to
allow use of its current required
methods as well.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36199
EPA has revisited the 1997 concept,
gauged the Agency’s progress towards
achieving its goals, and redefined steps
needed to ensure continued progress.
EPA has determined that while it may
sometimes be possible to specify
performance criteria in a manner that is
independent of methods, techniques, or
instruments, the development of a
single protocol for validating these
measurements that could be applied to
all measurements, including
measurement made with techniques yet
to be invented, is simply not possible.
Accordingly, EPA is introducing flexible
approaches in environmental
measurement. These flexible approaches
capture the Agency’s experience of the
past ten years, set the stage for future
progress in improving data quality, and
encourage the advancement of
environmental measurement
technologies.
The key goals for the flexible
approaches are as follows.
(1) Increase Emphasis on the Flexibility
of Choosing Sampling and Analytical
Approaches To Meet Regulatory
Requirements for Measurements
Setting measurement requirements
begins with indentifying goals and
considering such factors as action
levels, technology performance,
mandates, and/or limitations of the
program or project. These goals may be
applied broadly across a program and
established by a program office, or may
be specific to a project or permit. Goals
are translated into measurement
requirements, which may take a variety
of forms. In some applications, a general
requirement on accuracy may be
present; while in others, measurement
requirements may be coupled to a
technology, method, or procedure (e.g.,
criteria for evaluating modifications to
published reference methods).
The Agency recognizes that some of
its measurement quality requirements
that appear throughout its regulations
may be more specific than necessary,
and it will strive to make these
requirements more flexible as time and
resources permit.
(2) Develop Processes for Validations
That Confirm That Measurements Meet
Quality Requirements
A validation process should provide
evidence that measurement quality
requirements are achieved. According to
ISO 17025,1 ‘‘validation is the
confirmation by examination and the
provision of objective evidence that the
particular requirements for specific
1 ISO/IEC 17025 General requirements for the
competence of testing and calibration laboratories.
E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM
22JYN1
36200
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 22, 2009 / Notices
intended use are fulfilled.’’ Validation is
typically performed in two phases. The
first phase provides evidence on general
performance of a measurement system
for a range of materials that define a
matrix class; the second phase (often
called ‘‘verification’’), demonstrates that
the requirements for a specific use are
met. Both phases are important for
scientific and legal defensibility.
More general measurement
requirements call for more specific
validation processes. A general
requirement on accuracy that is
specified in a manner independent of
technique, method, or instrument
should be accompanied by detailed
validation for each method of
measurement. Conversely, a
measurement quality requirement to use
a particular procedure can require
essentially no validation, as a detailed
procedure often includes a complete
specification of required quality control
activities.
EPA intends to develop processes for
validation that allow for an appropriate
choice of specificity. For some
applications, validation processes may
continue to use defined procedures with
ongoing quality control. For other
applications, validation processes may
place emphasis on greater flexibility and
include verification that the
requirements for a specific use are
achieved.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
(3) Increase Collaboration With
Stakeholders To Develop Validation
Processes for New Measurement
Technology
Validation required for new
technology may be difficult to specify in
advance due to the wide variety of
performance issues which may be
encountered. The Agency anticipates
that developing validation processes for
applications of new technology will
require collaborating with stakeholders
to ensure timely development of these
processes. During this process, the
Agency expects to continue to play a
key role in the validation development.
(4) Timely Assessment of New or
Modified Technologies, Methods, and
Procedures
In the event that the measurement
requirements in a program are specific
to a technology, method, or procedure,
the Agency is committed to the
assessment of proposed alternatives to
these requirements and to rendering
timely decisions of these alternatives
when approval is sought.
Today’s notice is not a formal agency
action, but a statement of the Agency’s
approach to environmental
measurement flexibility. It creates no
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:04 Jul 21, 2009
Jkt 217001
rights enforceable by any party in
litigation with the United States.
Dated: June 30, 2009.
Kevin Teichman,
Acting EPA Science Advisor.
[FR Doc. E9–17402 Filed 7–21–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0481; FRL–8429–8]
Proposed Stipulated Injunction
Involving Pesticides and Eleven
Species Listed as Threatened or
Endangered Under the Endangered
Species Act; Notice of Availability;
Reopening of Comment Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice; reopening of comment
period.
SUMMARY: EPA issued a notice in the
Federal Register of July 1, 2009,
announcing the availability of a
proposed Stipulated Injunction that
would establish a series of deadlines for
the Agency to make ‘‘effects
determinations’’ and initiate
consultation, as appropriate, with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
certain pesticides in regard to one or
more of 11 species found in the greater
San Francisco Bay area that are listed as
endangered or threatened under the
Endangered Species Act. The proposed
Stipulated Injunction, if entered by the
Court, would resolve a lawsuit brought
against EPA by the Center for Biological
Diversity in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
California. The July 1, 2009 notice
provided a 15–day comment period
which closed on July 16, 2009. This
document reopens the comment period
for 30 days.
DATES: Comments, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2009–0481, must be received on or
before August 17, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed
instructions as provided under
ADDRESSES in the Federal Register
document of July 1, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arty
Williams, Environmental Fate and
Effects Division (7507P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–
0001; telephone number: (703) 305–
7695; e-mail address:
williams.arty@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 1,
2009 (74 FR 31427) (FRL–8425–1), EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
issued a notice in the Federal Register
opening a 15–day comment period on a
proposed Stipulated Injunction. The
proposed Stipulated Injunction if
entered by the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
California, would resolve a lawsuit
brought against EPA by the Center for
Biological Diversity (Center for
Biological Diversity v. EPA, No. C 07–
02794 JCS (N.D.Cal.)).
The original comment period closed
on July 16, 2009. However, based on
comments received, EPA is reopening
the comment period for 30 days to allow
the public additional time to develop
meaningful comments on the proposed
Stipulated Injunction. Comments must
be received on or before August 17,
2009.
To submit comments, or access the
docket, please follow the detailed
instructions as provided under
ADDRESSES in the July 1, 2009 Federal
Register document. If you have
questions, consult the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection,
Endangered species.
Dated: July 15, 2009.
Debra Edwards,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E9–17396 Filed 7–17–09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0484; FRL–8425–8]
Notice of Receipt of Several Pesticide
Petitions Filed for Residues of
Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various
Commodities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: This notice announces the
Agency’s receipt of several initial filings
of pesticide petitions proposing the
establishment or modification of
regulations for residues of pesticide
chemicals in or on various commodities.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 21, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by the docket identification
(ID) number and the pesticide petition
number (PP) for the petition of interest
as shown in the body of this document,
by one of the following methods:
E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM
22JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36198-36200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17402]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[EPA-HQ-ORD; FRL-8930-3]
Flexible Approaches to Environmental Measurement--The Evolution
of the Performance Approach
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Assuring the quality of environmental measurements is
essential to the implementation of the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's or the Agency's) environmental programs, both
regulatory and voluntary. In an October 6, 1997, Notice of Intent (FRL-
5903-2), the Agency outlined a ``Performance Based Measurement System
(PBMS)'' concept
[[Page 36199]]
which was expected to ``* * * have the overall effect of improving data
quality and encouraging advancement of analytical technologies.'' EPA
has recently revisited the 1997 concept, gauged the Agency's progress
towards achieving its goals, and redefined steps needed to ensure
continued progress.
The Agency has determined that while specifying performance
criteria in a manner that is independent of methods, techniques, or
instruments may be possible, developing a single protocol for the
validation of these measurements that could be applied to all
measurements, including measurements made with techniques yet to be
invented, may not be possible. Accordingly, EPA is introducing
principles that reflect flexible approaches to environmental
measurement. These principles capture the Agency's experience of the
past ten years, set the stage for future progress in improving data
quality, and encourage the advancement of environmental measurement
technologies.
Key goals for this flexible approach are as follows: Increased
emphasis on flexibility when choosing sampling and analytical
approaches to meet regulatory requirements for measurements;
development of processes for validation to confirm measurements meet
quality requirements; increased collaboration with stakeholders to
develop validation processes for new measurement technology; and timely
assessment of new or modified technologies, methods, and procedures.
The purpose of this notice is to provide the public with an up-to-
date communication on the Agency's progress to Flexible Measurement--
The Evolution of the Performance Approach.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For specific information regarding
this notice, contact Lara Autry, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of the Science Advisor, E243-05, 109 TW Alexander Drive,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; telephone number: 919-541-5544; fax
number: 919-541-4261; e-mail address: autry.lara@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Forum on Environmental Measurements
(FEM) is a standing committee of senior EPA mangers established to
develop policies to guide the EPA measurement community in validating
and disseminating methods for environmental monitoring; for ensuring
that monitoring studies are scientifically rigorous, statistically
sound, and yield representative data; and for employing a quality
systems approach that ensures that the data gathered and used by the
Agency is of known and documented quality. The Forum was established to
promote consistency and consensus within the EPA on measurement issues.
Historically, most EPA programs have specified required analytical
methods to be used by the regulated community in the analysis of
environmental samples for regulatory compliance purposes. EPA has
published its methods in regulations and a number of compendia, such as
``Manual of Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes'' and
``Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking
Water.'' The requirement to use specific analytical methods for
compliance purposes is one of several means for assuring appropriate
consistency and reliability in environmental monitoring.
In certain instances, in order to provide regulated parties with
the flexibility to use alternative methods, EPA programs have
established administrative processes by which the public could submit a
proposed method for Agency review and approval. Before alternative
methods are used in regulatory compliance applications, EPA's
regulations require that such methods be approved by the Agency through
formal rulemaking.
In past instances, the approval processes have been lengthy. For
example, in some cases, the approval process took several years to
receive consent for a proposed method or method modification after the
Agency completed its evaluation. The approach of specifying required
methods and approving new methods was identified as a major barrier to
using innovative monitoring technology. In order to address these
concerns, EPA's former Environmental Monitoring Management Council
(EMMC) established a work group of scientists representing EPA's
Headquarters and Regional offices to consider the advisability for
establishing a performance-based approach to specifying analytical
testing requirements. Based on the work group's recommendations in
1997, the Agency announced its intent to incorporate the PBMS approach,
to the extent feasible, into its programs.
At the same time, the Agency intended that PBMS would provide the
regulated community with flexibility in conducting required
environmental monitoring, expedite the use of new and innovative
techniques, and result in less costly approaches to conducting required
monitoring and measurements. Under PBMS, the Agency envisioned that
this approach would continue to allow use of its current required
methods as well.
EPA has revisited the 1997 concept, gauged the Agency's progress
towards achieving its goals, and redefined steps needed to ensure
continued progress. EPA has determined that while it may sometimes be
possible to specify performance criteria in a manner that is
independent of methods, techniques, or instruments, the development of
a single protocol for validating these measurements that could be
applied to all measurements, including measurement made with techniques
yet to be invented, is simply not possible. Accordingly, EPA is
introducing flexible approaches in environmental measurement. These
flexible approaches capture the Agency's experience of the past ten
years, set the stage for future progress in improving data quality, and
encourage the advancement of environmental measurement technologies.
The key goals for the flexible approaches are as follows.
(1) Increase Emphasis on the Flexibility of Choosing Sampling and
Analytical Approaches To Meet Regulatory Requirements for Measurements
Setting measurement requirements begins with indentifying goals and
considering such factors as action levels, technology performance,
mandates, and/or limitations of the program or project. These goals may
be applied broadly across a program and established by a program
office, or may be specific to a project or permit. Goals are translated
into measurement requirements, which may take a variety of forms. In
some applications, a general requirement on accuracy may be present;
while in others, measurement requirements may be coupled to a
technology, method, or procedure (e.g., criteria for evaluating
modifications to published reference methods).
The Agency recognizes that some of its measurement quality
requirements that appear throughout its regulations may be more
specific than necessary, and it will strive to make these requirements
more flexible as time and resources permit.
(2) Develop Processes for Validations That Confirm That Measurements
Meet Quality Requirements
A validation process should provide evidence that measurement
quality requirements are achieved. According to ISO 17025,\1\
``validation is the confirmation by examination and the provision of
objective evidence that the particular requirements for specific
[[Page 36200]]
intended use are fulfilled.'' Validation is typically performed in two
phases. The first phase provides evidence on general performance of a
measurement system for a range of materials that define a matrix class;
the second phase (often called ``verification''), demonstrates that the
requirements for a specific use are met. Both phases are important for
scientific and legal defensibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ISO/IEC 17025 General requirements for the competence of
testing and calibration laboratories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More general measurement requirements call for more specific
validation processes. A general requirement on accuracy that is
specified in a manner independent of technique, method, or instrument
should be accompanied by detailed validation for each method of
measurement. Conversely, a measurement quality requirement to use a
particular procedure can require essentially no validation, as a
detailed procedure often includes a complete specification of required
quality control activities.
EPA intends to develop processes for validation that allow for an
appropriate choice of specificity. For some applications, validation
processes may continue to use defined procedures with ongoing quality
control. For other applications, validation processes may place
emphasis on greater flexibility and include verification that the
requirements for a specific use are achieved.
(3) Increase Collaboration With Stakeholders To Develop Validation
Processes for New Measurement Technology
Validation required for new technology may be difficult to specify
in advance due to the wide variety of performance issues which may be
encountered. The Agency anticipates that developing validation
processes for applications of new technology will require collaborating
with stakeholders to ensure timely development of these processes.
During this process, the Agency expects to continue to play a key role
in the validation development.
(4) Timely Assessment of New or Modified Technologies, Methods, and
Procedures
In the event that the measurement requirements in a program are
specific to a technology, method, or procedure, the Agency is committed
to the assessment of proposed alternatives to these requirements and to
rendering timely decisions of these alternatives when approval is
sought.
Today's notice is not a formal agency action, but a statement of
the Agency's approach to environmental measurement flexibility. It
creates no rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the
United States.
Dated: June 30, 2009.
Kevin Teichman,
Acting EPA Science Advisor.
[FR Doc. E9-17402 Filed 7-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P