IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE : The information on this site is subject to a legal notice (http://europa.eu/geninfo/legal_notices_en.htm).
Plant Protection Products - Guidance documents - Existing Active Substances procedures for evaluation

Working document (does not necessarily represent the views of the Commission services)

Aide mémoire with regard to certain aspects of the procedures for the evaluation of EXISTING active substances in view of a possible inclusion into Annex I of Directive 91/414/EEC

1. Preparation of monograph by Rapporteur Member State

The Rapporteur Member State should have close contacts with data submitters in order to

2. Data made available before submission of the monograph to the Commission

When new data are generated before the monograph is submitted to the Commission, they should be sent to the Rapporteur Member State only. Such data, when received before the deadline(s) referred to in point (1) will be evaluated by the Rapporteur Member State and included in the monograph.

3. Submission of the monograph to the Commission

A hard copy and an electronic copy of the monograph is sent by the Rapporteur Member State to the Commission.

At this stage, the Rapporteur Member State has to ensure that the data submitter sends the complete dossier including any new data as one package (to the Commission and) to those Member States who request a full dossier (see doc. 1606A2/VI/95).

4. Distribution of monographs

The Commission arranges for distribution of the monograph as soon as possible by the ECCO-team to all Member States, to the relevant Commission Services (list of contact points : see doc. 1606A2/VI/95) and to the main data submitters (identified by Rapporteur Member State and Commission). A main data submitter is defined as a submitter of a complete dossier which alone would pass a check of completeness. The Rapporteur Member State identifies the main data submitters in agreement with the Commission.

The Rapporteur Member State ensures that all notifiers are informed that the monograph has been sent to the Commission.

Contacts between Rapporteur Member State and notifier at this stage might be useful.

5. Consultation of monographs

The Member States shall make available at specific request or keep available for consultation by interested parties the following information:

It is recommended that interested parties contact preferably the Rapporteur Member State.

6. Data made available after submission of the monograph to the Commission and before the peer review meeting are organised by the ECCO-team.

Any such data should be sent, preferably as a package of all new data, by the data submitter to the Rapporteur Member State only. Only after the Rapporteur Member State has carried out the evaluation of any new data submitted after the submission of the monograph to the Commission, the Rapporteur Member State should ensure that the new data be sent as a package to the Commission and to those Member States who request a full dossier (in accordance with the provisions of document 1606A2/VI/95). The Rapporteur Member state will also send a copy of its evaluation to the other Member States and the Commission.

7. Organisation of peer review meetings

The following steps are taken for the organisation of these meetings:

The Rapporteur Member State should as far as possible and necessary discuss the major comments made by Member States or data submitters with the main data submitters before the peer review meetings take place.

These meetings should:

New data available after the submission of the monograph will only be discussed at the peer review meetings if the Rapporteur Member State has been able to evaluate the data. All new data tabled at the meeting will be noted in the reports of the meetings as being submitted. If it was not possible to discuss certain new data this will be mentioned in the report.

It may be appropriate that the applicant informs the Rapporteur Member State on the name and phone number of the expert in charge of the dosssier in the company under peer review for possible consultation during the peer review meeting.

Following each peer review meeting a table with all outstanding questions (evaluation table) is sent within 2 weeks by the ECCO- team to the Rapporteur Member State.

The Rapporteur Member State should immediately after receiving these tables discuss them with the main data submitter in order to try to solve any questions.

The report of the meetings is sent by the ECCO-team within 4 weeks to the contact point of the Rapporteur Member State and to the experts who participated at the meeting. The ECCO reports will not contain confidential information (except if necessary in a separate annex).

The main data submitter has to send his comments on the evaluation tables to the Rapporteur Member State. The Rapporteur Member State should comment in the evaluation table on the arguments presented by the applicant/main data submitter and send it to the ECCO-team before the final overview meeting which will take place about 2 months after the 5th meeting.

The overview meeting should review the outcome of the 5 meetings, the evaluation table and the main areas of concern. The evaluation table should contain the comments of the main data submitter on the outstanding questions and the assessment of the Rapporteur Member State of these comments and be presented in the format as agreed (model as provided by the Commission). During the overview meeting the column concerning the recommendations from the overview meeting is completed.

The Commission will ensure that the ECCO-team sends:

i) the full report of all peer review meetings to all Member States and the relevant Commission services and the main data submitter;

ii) a draft of the administrative part of the review report and the evaluation table to the Commission only. The Commission will distribute these documents to all Member States in time before the active substance will be discussed at the evaluation group meetings.

8. The legislation group is informed by the Commission of the conclusion of the peer review meetings.

9. Tripartite meeting (Commission/Rapporteur Member State/main data submitters)

Such meetings are organised, at the request of the Commission, by the Rapporteur Member State. They are only organised if the Commission envisages an unfavourable decision. In this case the list of outstanding questions in the evaluation tables will be the basis for discussion. The aim of the meeting is to discuss any scientific and technical aspects with all relevant experts from the Rapporteur Member State including as far as possible the experts who attended the peer review meetings on the substance in question. The main data submitter should react to the main outstanding questions or restrictions proposed; however at these meetings no new data will be evaluated.

The main data submitters should present his main arguments and the results of studies or evaluations in the evaluation table, referring if necessary to background documents where a more detailed argumentation is presented. No raw data should be circulated as answer to any outstanding question because confidentiality can not be guaranteed since all comments received will be included in the background documentation supporting the review report of the active substance. The Rapporteur Member State should comment in the evaluation table on the arguments presented by the main data submitter.

10. Evaluation group meeting

The Commission distributes as soon as possible before the meeting the evaluation table.

In principle 2 discussions will be held on this table and on the main areas of concern. The Rapporteur Member State should as far as possible present the outcome of his evaluation of new studies having been submitted and which were not considered during the peer review meetings.

At the evaluation meeting a timetable for the evaluation of any new data, submitted after the monograph has been submitted to the Commission and which have not yet been evaluated by the Rapporteur Member State, will be agreed taking into account the amount of new data submitted. The meeting will also agree on a realistic timetable for any submission of further data.

The Commission will update the evaluation table and send it to the Rapporteur Member State who should if necessary contact the main data submitter in order to address the remaining issues. The Rapporteur Member State should update the evaluation table and send it to the Commission who will distribute it before the next meeting to all Member States.

The appendices of the review report containing the endpoints will be sent by the Commission to the Rapporteur Member State after the finalisation of the discussions in the evaluation group (unless the active substance would be suspended or withdrawn from the market). The Rapporteur Member State will update these appendices and send them back to the Commission. In principle no discussion is provided on the list of endpoints in the evaluation group meeting.

Before the finalisation of the discussion in the working group and in the Scientific Committee for Plants, the Rapporteur Member State will send to all the Member States and to the Commission its detailed evaluation on new data made available after the submission of the monograph to the Commission and which are considered to be critical by the evaluation group for the decision making, as an addendum of the monograph. For the other new data the results of the evaluation are available in the evaluation table.

The Rapporteur Member State shall ensure that the data submitters submit all data made available after the submission of the monograph to the Commission to those Member States who request a full dossier and to the Commission; a summary dossier should be sent to all Member States and to the Commission.

11. Information of the legislation group meeting

The Commission will explain its intention for possible decision on the active substance to the Member States.

12. Consultation of the Scientific Committee for Plants (SCP)

DG VI invites DG XXIV to consult the Scientific Committee for Plants. However when a withdrawal or a full suspension is proposed, it may not be necessary to consult the Scientific Committee for Plants. The following information will be made available :

The Scientific Committee for Plants will complement to existing procedures avoiding any duplication.

In cases of specific questions addressed to the SCP, the Committee will issue an opinion addressing the question raised.

In cases of draft Annex I inclusion proposals which are not accompanied by specific question(s) to the SCP, agreement of the Committee will normally be indicated in the relevant Plenary Meeting report. Should the Committee disagree with a proposal, it will issue an opinion explaining it reasoning.

The Committee will act proactively and will therefore retain the right to draft or supplement questions and issue opinions accordingly.

13. Legislation group meeting

Discussions can take place before the Scientific Committee on Plants has given its opinion in order to update the "administrative" parts of the review report and its appendices (list of endpoints and list of claims.

Discussion on the draft decision and its "legislative and technical" parts will start after the Scientific Committee for Plants has given its opinion. This opinion will be made available by the Commission to the Member States in time before the meeting. The Commission will submit a draft review report. At this stage a discussion starts on the review report and on the appendices of the review report containing the endpoints.

Preparation of the final draft decision and final review report.

14. Standing Committee on Plant Health

DG VI will prepare a draft decision on which internal consultations in the Commission will be organised.

The SCPH notes the final review report and gives a formal opinion on the final draft decision.

15. Finalisation of the review report

The review report contains 3 background documents:

A : the monograph

B : the peer review report, including the final evaluation table,and the detailed evaluation of the Rapporteur Member State of new data made available after the submission of the monograph to the Commission and which are considered critical for the decision making .

C : the comments submitted after the peer review