15 C.F.R. § 990.27

Use of assessment procedures

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Standards for assessment procedures. Any procedures used pursuant to this part must comply with all of the following standards if they are to be in accordance with this part:

(1) The procedure must be capable of providing assessment information of use in determining the type and scale of restoration appropriate for a particular injury;

(2) The additional cost of a more complex procedure must be reasonably related to the expected increase in the quantity and/or quality of relevant information provided by the more complex procedure; and

(3) The procedure must be reliable and valid for the particular incident.

(b) Assessment procedures available. (1) The range of assessment procedures available to trustees includes, but is not limited to:

(i) Procedures conducted in the field;

(ii) Procedures conducted in the laboratory;

(iii) Model-based procedures, including type A procedures identified in 43 CFR part 11, subpart D, and compensation formulas/schedules; and

(iv) Literature-based procedures.

(2) Trustees may use the assessment procedures in paragraph (b)(1) of this section alone, or in any combination, provided that the standards in paragraph (a) of this section are met, and there is no double recovery.

(c) Selecting assessment procedures. (1) When selecting assessment procedures, trustees must consider, at a minimum:

(i) The range of procedures available under paragraph (b) of this section;

(ii) The time and cost necessary to implement the procedures;

(iii) The potential nature, degree, and spatial and temporal extent of the injury;

(iv) The potential restoration actions for the injury; and

(v) The relevance and adequacy of information generated by the procedures to meet information requirements of restoration planning.

(2) If a range of assessment procedures providing the same type and quality of information is available, the most cost-effective procedure must be used.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1997–1998 · leading case: Nat'l Ass'n of Mfrs. v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 134 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
Nat'l Ass'n of Mfrs. v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 134 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1998). “3d at 772 (quoting 15 C.F.R. § 990.27 (a)(3)), we did not conclude that such validation procedures were a necessary feature of the regulations authorized by OPA, nor did we suggest that the related but independent regulatory scheme established by CERCLA contained any such…”
Gen. Elec. Co. v. United States Dep't of Com., 128 F.3d 767 (D.C. Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “” 15 C.F.R. § 990.27 (a)(3). We turn to industry petitioners’ specific challenges to the final rule.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.