Finally, the proposed rule would establish several exemption categories, but does not offer any opportunity for an applicant to seek an exemption for an individual product. Given the dynamic nature of the technology, products with unique characteristics and use patterns that might warrant specific exemptions probably will be developed within the next 5 to 10 years. Without a mechanism to address these individual products case by case, a time-consuming rule-making process would be required to establish one or more new exemption categories. The committee also recommends that

EPA's rule should establish a process for applicants that do not qualify for an existing exemption to consult with the agency and seek an administrative exemption on a product-by-product basis when the pesticidal substance in the plant does not warrant registration. The process should be transparent, with sufficient information made available to allow subsequent applicants to benefit.

For a substance to qualify for exemption from FIFRA requirements in the proposed rule, EPA would require any person who sells or distributes it to notify the agency of any new information concerning potential adverse effects on human health or the environment associated with the product (EPA 1994a). That provision would, for the first time, require nonregistrants to comply with a reporting obligation imposed by statute on registrants (FIFRA § 6(a)(2); US Congress 1947, section 136d(a)(2)). Although little attention has been directed to the impact of this proposal, it would probably apply to many plant breeders, researchers and seed distributors that work with conventional pest-protected plants and have never been subject to FIFRA or EPA jurisdiction. The proposed rule does not assess the potential for taking advantage of monitoring systems that use federally funded insect surveys, independent crop consultants, and USDA extension agents to identify potential adverse effects associated with conventional pest-protected plants and other crops. The committee recommends that

EPA should publicly reexamine the extent to which FIFRA adverse effects reporting is intended to apply to plant breeders, researchers, and seed distributors of conventional pest-protected plants who have never been subject to FIFRA or EPA jurisdiction. For products that meet the definition of a pesticide but are exempt from registration under FIFRA, EPA should review the extent to which existing field monitoring systems could substitute for traditional FIFRA reporting requirements.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement