Yes, thank you.
Notwithstanding, I'd like to respond very briefly to some of the other things that we've heard today in a CEPA context with respect to the member's question.
With CEPA today, independent of the time, it is important to understand that CEPA does allow for a process to publish an assessment, receive comments from the public and industry, and then respond back. Again, not defending times one way or the other and the length of time it takes, there are two important points to note. As you're hearing today from the debate--and this is what makes our job so simple--we see this every day. It would not be uncommon for somebody unhappy with an assessment we would do, on either side of the fence, to say, well, here, consider this--here's new evidence, here's a new formulation. There are a lot of times when people are not happy with our decisions, an indication that we should go back and do it again.
Quite frankly, we don't. We take a weight-of-evidence approach. We take a look at the new evidence that's brought forward and we don't redo it. We ask: does this in a material way change the conclusions? That's the method we use. We've heard that with the speakers today. That QSAR, that weight of evidence, published data, that's what we take a look at. We're constantly being bombarded with new information--please consider this, please consider that, reassess. We take a look at that, but we don't always reassess. We consider that from a weight-of-evidence approach and then make a decision about whether it's important to revisit a decision.
The other thing to note is that CEPA, through the existing substances, does allow us, as the science changes, as it evolves, to revisit any substance we've assessed, if we feel scientific information has changed or exposure or uses might have changed that would lead us to come to a different conclusion. We can choose to reassess and we are constantly presented with new information and consider a weight-of-evidence approach.