Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
This action is directed to the public in general. This action, however, may be of interest to persons who produce or formulate pesticides or who register pesticide products. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) significantly amended the
During 1998 and 1999, EPA and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) established a subcommittee of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT), the Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC), to address FFDCA issues and implementation. TRAC comprised more than 50 representatives of affected user, producer, consumer, public health, environmental, states, and other interested groups. The TRAC met from May 27, 1998, through April 29, 1999.
In order to continue the constructive discussions about FFDCA, EPA and USDA established, under the auspices of NACEPT, the Committee to Advise on Reassessment and Transition (CARAT). The CARAT provided a forum for a broad spectrum of stakeholders to consult with and advise the Agency and the Secretary of Agriculture on pest and pesticide management transition issues related to the tolerance reassessment process. The CARAT was intended to further the valuable work initiated by earlier advisory committees toward the use of sound science and greater transparency in regulatory decision-making, increased stakeholder participation, and reasonable transition strategies that reduce risks without jeopardizing American agriculture and farm communities.
As a result of the 1998 and 1999 TRAC process, EPA decided that the implementation process and related policies would benefit from providing notice and comment on major science policy issues. The TRAC identified nine science policy areas it believed were key to implementation of tolerance reassessment. EPA agreed to provide one or more documents for comment on each of the nine issues by announcing their availability in the
Historically, assessment of the potential health risks associated with exposure to pesticides has focused upon single pathways of exposure (e.g., from pesticide residues in food, water, or residential/non-occupational uses) for individual chemicals, and not on the potential for individuals to be exposed to multiple pesticides by all pathways concurrently. In 1996, the FQPA required EPA to consider potential human health risks from all pathways of dietary and non-dietary exposures to more than one pesticide acting through a common mechanism of toxicity.
The “Guidance for Submission of Probabilistic Human Health Exposure Assessments to the Office of Pesticide Programs” was issued in 1998;
EPA is withdrawing the “Guidance for Submission of Probabilistic Human Health Exposure Assessments to the Office of Pesticide Programs” because it has been superseded by several other EPA policy and guidance documents. These include: (1) “General Principles for Performing Aggregate Exposure and Risk Assessments,”
The “General Principles for Performing Aggregate Exposure and Risk Assessments” focus upon describing principles to guide the way in which aggregate exposure and risk assessment may be performed when more extensive distributional data and more sophisticated exposure assessment, methods and tools are available.
The “Guidance on Cumulative Risk Assessment of Pesticide Chemicals That Have a Common Mechanism of Toxicity” provides guidance for OPP scientists for evaluating and estimating the potential human risks associated with such multi-chemical and multi-pathway exposures to pesticides.
The policies and guidance mentioned above reflect EPA's most recent guidance, thus superseding the information in “Guidance for Submission of Probabilistic Human Health Exposure Assessments to the Office of Pesticide Programs.” While the information in the document we are withdrawing is not necessarily inaccurate, it is outdated.
This action is also responsive to the recommendations made by EPA's Office of Inspector General during its review of EPA's implementation of FQPA. In its report “Opportunities to Improve Data Quality and Children's Health through the FQPA” issued January 10, 2006
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests.