American Chemistry Council filed 19 comments on this docket between May 2, 2014 and Jul 11, 2017. 6 other organizations filed here. The comment window closed 2766d ago.
Filed on regulations.gov — full text not in the inline record.
Filed on regulations.gov — full text not in the inline record.
Filed on regulations.gov — full text not in the inline record.
Attached please find the attached letter from the American Chemistry Council, sent to EPA in September 2016, regarding concerns with the IRIS programs lack of responsiveness to public comments.
Filed on regulations.gov — full text not in the inline record.
Filed on regulations.gov — full text not in the inline record.
Attached please find comments from the American Chemistry Council on the most recent draft IRIS assessment (Tert-butanol, dated April 2016). The comments contained herein are relevant to all draft IRIS assessments and should have broad utility.
Filed on regulations.gov — full text not in the inline record.
Attached please find comments from Nancy Beck on behalf of the American Chemistry Council regarding cross-cutting comments on EPA's RDX draft IRIS assessment. These comments address overarching topics regarding the presentation and transparency of scientific materials.
Filed on regulations.gov — full text not in the inline record.
Attached are comments on behalf of ACC ARASP regarding Characterizing Uncertainty in Scientific Assessment. ACC provided these comments in September 2015 to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in response to their public consultation on the draft guidance found here: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/consultations/call/150618. As EPA works to develop a workshop on Characterizing and Communicating Uncertainty in Human Health Risk Assessment in 2016 we hope the EFSA guidance and ACC comments will be helpful.
Attached are comments on behalf of ACC ARASP regarding suggestions for EPA's December 2105 Systematic Review Workshop
Filed on regulations.gov — full text not in the inline record.
Filed on regulations.gov — full text not in the inline record.
The attached slides were presented at the October 30, 2014 IRIS Bi-monthly meeting in response to a question that asked about the definitions of mutagenicity and genotoxicity. As this was noted to be a cross-cutting science issue that may come up in other IRIS assessments, ACC is submitting these comments to the EPA IRIS General Comments Docket.
Attached are comments from the American Chemistry Council reflecting cross-cutting suggestions for the IRIS program.
Attached please find comments, submitted by the American Chemistry Council, to help inform how the IRIS program can improve procedures for evaluating study reliability and data quality. These slides were presented at the April 2013 bimonthly meeting to inform the DEP assessment. However, they are broadly applicable. Richard A. Becker, Ph.D., DABT Senior Toxicologist Regulatory and Technical Affairs American Chemistry Council |700 – 2nd Street NE |Washington, DC| 20002 Telephone: (202) 249-6405 E-Mail: Rick_Becker@americanchemistry.com
Attached please find comments, submitted by the American Chemistry Council, to help inform how the IRIS program can use, consider, and present mechanistic information. These slides were presented at the April 2013 bimonthly meeting to inform the HBCD assessment. However, they are broadly applicable.
Attached please find comments from the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the Center for Advancing Risk Assessment Science and Policy (ARASP) on the draft IRIS handbook that EPA released to the National Academies on January 2013. The attached constructive comments and suggestions should be useful to EPA as the IRIS program continues to improve its approach to developing IRIS assessments.
Attached please find a letter sent to Dr. Kenneth Olden, at NCEA, on November 15, 2013, on behalf of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the center for Advancing Risk Asessement Science and Policy (ARASP). The letter contains suggestions that should help NCEA improve their planning and conduct of future workshops.
This docket is used to accept public comments that have broad applicability to the IRIS Program. Commenters are asked to please identify themselves and provide contact information to promote an open dialogue on issues. Examples of the types of comments appropriate for this docket include: • Comments on general scientific issues that apply to all assessments • Other general comments (not chemical-specific) about the IRIS Program The IRIS Program’s stakeholders have specifically requested this docket be created. By having a docket for general comments, stakeholders will no longer have to submit the same general comment to individual chemical dockets that are established for each IRIS assessment.
View on regulations.gov →