Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration

EPA. 1983a. Chloroform and maleic hydrazide Determination concluding the rebuttable presumptions against registration and notice of availability of position documents. Federal Register 48 498-501. 

EPA. 1981b. Creosote, pentachlorophenol, and the inorganic arsenicals Preliminary notice of determination concluding the rebuttable presumption against registration of the wood-preservative uses of pesticide products. Fed Reg 46 13020-13036. 

Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration and Continued Registration of Pesticide Products Containing Dibromo-chioropropane (DBCP). Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Register 42 48026-48045, 1977. 

About 30 participants met to discuss EPA s process of Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration (RPAR) for evaluating pesticides deemed to present an unreasonable risk to humans or the environment. A lucid description of the mechanics of the RPAR process, and the role of EPA s Scientific Advisory Panel (sap) in this process, was presented by Dr. Robert Neal, a member of SAP. No EPA representative was present to field questions or express EPA s viewpoint on this controversial topic. 

For many years the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has expressed Interest in these grain fumigants, especially those that have met or exceeded the risk criteria of EPA s Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration (RPAR) Program ). 

Trichlorfon was on the Rebuttal Presumption Against Registration (RPAR) list, however diazinon was not at the time exposure studies were made. It was selected for measurement because of its widespread use in the industry. 

During the EFA s Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration (RPAR) process (now called Special Review), it became apparent that if uses of certain pesticides with identified potentials for causing adverse effects were to be continued, user exposure data would be needed that demonstrated minimal exposure hazards when certain use procedures were followed. Scientists of both the EPA and the Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) to EPA then realized that they could not make satisfactory risk assessments and evaluate the impact of continued use without actual workplace exposure data. 

Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration established as key mechanism for study of presumed risk of old pesticides. 

---