EPA review process

Over 30 months elapsed between the time AGS and Lindow notified EPA and the tests were conducted. The EPA review process for the notifications and EUP applications consumed about six months, and the applicants spent four to six months developing additional data requested by EPA. The remaining 18 to 20 months were consumed by efforts to resolve legal challenges mounted against both EPA and the applicants in an effort to prevent the field trials. Table I... 

EPA Review Process for the Advanced Genetic Sciences and University of California (Dr Lindow) Experimental Use Permit Application,... 

Subdivision O guidelines for residue chemistry data were originally pubHshed by the EPA in 1982. These have been supplemented to improve the rate of acceptance by EPA reviewers of the many reports submitted by registrants in support of tolerances for pesticides in foods. The residue chemistry studies most frequently rejected include metaboHsm in plants, food processing (qv) studies, and studies on storage stabHity of residues in field samples (57). AH tolerances (maximum residue levels) estabHshed under FIFRA are Hsted in 40 CFR under Sections 180 for individual pesticides in/on raw agricultural commodities, 180 for exemptions from tolerances, 185 for processed foods, and 186 for animal feeds. 

Deviation from the 860.1500 test location guideline should be discussed with EPA prior to starting a specialized marketing plan if significant delays are to be avoided during the review process. OPPTS 860.1500 outlines how the number of tests in a study can be modified relative to SEN labels. The use of an SEN may be a particularly useful way to manage unique crop pests found in limited easily definable and reasonably confined production regions. 

The status indicates where the chemical is in the review process and includes Draft, Proposed, Interim, and Final. For more information, see the United State Environmental Protection Agency website at http //www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl/ index.htm. 

Because of strict definitions of commerciality, PMN initiation must occur so early to allow sufficient time for internal formalization and ninety days of EPA review that many of those going through the review process will be altered due to continuous innovation efforts to improve performance and cost. These alternatives often result in nearly structurally identical substances but ones that TSCA will define as "new". Even when these products do reach commerciality, the same research effort often offers them a very limited life span. 

Synthetic Methodology Assessment for Reduction Techniques (SMART) A program adapted from the EPAs SMART review process and designed to quantify and categorize hazardous materials used in a manufacturing process. Green Synthetic Reactions Provides a searchable database of synthetic processes and identifies alternative processes published to replace more hazardous materials with less hazardous ones. 

Synthetic Methodology Assessment for Reduction Techniques (SMART) is a non-regnlatory program of the EPA for achieving pollution prevention in the prodnction of new chemicals. It includes a review process for the environmental assessment and hazard classification for new chemicals. 

EPA (2008h). Regulating Pesticides Special Review Process. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Accessed at http //www.epa.gov/oppsrrdl/special review/. 

Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) - Because of the rigorous peer-review process, IRIS does not yet contain information on all chemicals of potential interest to users of Risk As-sistant, or on all aspects of the toxicity of the chemicals that it does include. Accordingly, for chemicals that are not covered by IRIS, toxic hazard data from the HEAST are provided. These data do not have the Agency-wide approval of IRIS data, but have been reviewed by EPA. 

In 1996, there were 25,000 workers employed in 75-100 domestic wood treatment plants using coal tar creosote. As a result of the use of engineering controls and personal protective equipment (e.g., respiratory protection and impervious gloves) required in the 1986 settlement of the EPA Special Review process,1 airborne exposures to creosote components in the workplace are generally below the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.2 mg benzene soluble particulates perm3 air (Rivers 1990). 

The EPA use SARs, including Quantitative Structure Activity Relationships (QSAR), in the PMN review process, to help with risk assessment in the absence of test data. 

EPA s review process will include some or all of the elements described in the following paragraphs and depicted in Figure 1. As the Agency builds a baseline of risk assessment data atxi gains more experience in evaluating these products, certain steps may no longer be necessary. In certain cases, an abbreviated review process may be appropriate (e.q., review of a proposal that is similar to an already reviewed case). Such a determination will be made on a case-by-case basis. 

RESPONSE EPA agrees that they would not normally be reportable because the exposure is not widespread and previously unsuspected. However, if health or environmental effects are seen then reporting should be considered. Also, if the substance has started the regulatory review process under FIFRA it would not be subject to section 8(e) reporting. A chemical substance which is in the process of R D as a pesticide is subject to TSCA until such time as the manufacturer or importer demonstrates the intent to produce a pesticide by submitting to the Agency an application for an Experimental Use Permit or registration under FIFRA. 

Standard review is not the standard process, despite its name, because only a relatively small percentage of PMNs follow this path. For those chemicals in the standard review process, the EPA holds an interdisciplinary meeting around the seventy-ninth to eighty-second day after it received the PMN. 

After each submission in a tier, EPA requests a third-party contractor to convene a group of scientists and relevant experts from various stakeholder groups to discuss whether the potential hazards, exposures, and risks to children have been adequately evaluated and to provide input on the hazard and exposure data needs. The third-party contractor then provides a report to the EPA, which EPA reviews along with the original sponsor submission. The entire peer consultation process, including meetings and deliberations, is open to the pubHc. Members of the pubHc also have an opportunity to... 

EPA staff currently perform source reduction assessments on all new PMN cases in a process called nthetic Methodology Assessment for Reduction Technologies (SMART). Although minor changes in the review process and criteria have been instituted since the pilot study, the following process description reflects the Agency s current process and criteria. 

---