Примеры использования Notifying country на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
An overview of the regulatory system of the notifying country, if relevant;
If for instance a specific LOAEL is used by the notifying country for standard setting this value should also be available in the list of studies described in the DGD.
Information on exposure is to be related to the prevailing conditions of use in the notifying country.
Comments on the typical use of the chemical in the notifying country, with comments on possible misuse if appropriate.
We will seek references where models have been previously used in notifications with and without validation in the notifying country.
In assessing notifications of banned andseverely restricted chemicals used in a notifying country under article 5, problems arose with the application of the term"risk evaluation.
This section should contain evidence, as available,that a risk evaluation was carried out under the prevailing conditions of the notifying country.
Exports of the prohibited substance may be permitted only when a special import licence has been issued by the notifying country, in accordance with the provisions of article 13 of the 1971 Convention.
In particular, the paper should provide guidance on how to demonstrate the relevance of the exposure component to the conditions prevailing in the notifying country.
Information to be contained in the supporting documentation provided by a notifying country using a risk evaluation from another country in support of final regulatory action.
Upon notification of a prohibition,a country must take measures to ensure that none of the substances specified in the notification is exported to the notifying country or any of its regions.
Provided advice on how the use of a risk assessment by a country other than the notifying country to take a national decision couldan meet the information requirements of Annex II of the Convention; and.
It was therefore necessary that bridging information be submitted to demonstrate how an evaluation made under another multilateral environmental agreement applied to the prevailing conditions in the notifying country.
He had replied that data to satisfy the criteria in Annex II(b)(i),(b)(ii)and(b)(iii) should be generated in the notifying country and that all criteria should be linked to prevailing conditions there.
The member from India reiterated his view that there was no room for interpretation of the Convention language, which, in his opinion, clearly stated that thecriteria in Annex II(b)(ii) and(iii) must be met according to conditions prevailing in the notifying country.
Of specific concern was the acceptability of quantitative versus qualitative information,in particular the extent to which simple descriptions or statements by the notifying country regarding prevailing conditions relevant to human health and the environment might be acceptable.
It was stressed that, even when hazard or risk evaluation information was taken from another country, supporting documentation would be expected to demonstrate that conditions in that country were similar and comparable to those in the notifying country.
The Committee noted that,in the absence of documentation detailing how the risk evaluation used from another country related to conditions prevalent in the notifying country, such an action would not be considered as meeting the criteria of Annex II of the Convention.
Referring to the phrase"prevailing conditions in the notifying country" in that paragraph, he said that, under the criterion in paragraph(b)(ii), of Annex II, in-country generation of data was not always needed, pointing out that most data were generated by international sources.
Reference is selectively made to those parts of the risk evaluations that are relevant to the notifying country are used in the bridging information.
There are no actual field measurements Document UNEP/FAO/RC/CRC.5/INF/3 on guidance on the application of criteria II b(iii)(from page 98 onwards), indicates that expected or anticipated exposure established with modelling is adapted to the anticipated exposure andprevailing conditions in the notifying country.
The procedure outlined in the paper was guidance to the Committee on the sort of bridging information that would be helpful in determining whether the risk evaluation in the notifying country reflected the prevailing conditions in that country in accordance with criterion(b)(iii) of Annex II.
For those notifications where a country had used a risk evaluation from another country as the basis for a national decision, there was debate as to what would constitute acceptable oradequate bridging information by the Committee in determining the extent to which the original risk evaluation reflected the prevailing conditions in the notifying country.
At the tenth session of the Negotiating Committee, representatives expressed support for the use of the guidelines prepared by the interim Chemical Review Committee on the scope of the bridging information to be provided by a notifying country using a risk evaluation from another country in support of final regulatory action UNEP/FAO/PIC/INC.10/14.
For the first two examples,where reported incidents occur in a country other than the country submitting the notification of final regulatory action the relevance to the notifying country should be described.
He highlighted the principles that should be applied when considering the information, as set out in that document, andstressed that the Committee could not simply take a statement by the notifying country at face value without undertaking further investigations and research.
One member reiterated his growing unease at the underlying message that he considered was being sent by the member from India,which was that all data had to be generated within the notifying country, including hazard data.
The secretariat introduced the note on bridging information(UNEP/FAO/RC/CRC.1/11)that would be used by the Committee in judging the acceptability of a notification where the notifying country had used a risk evaluation from another country or international body.
In responding to that question, the Chair reviewed the requirements as set out in the Convention andpointed out that the information requirement in Annex I contained no explicit provision requiring the submission by the notifying country of the full risk evaluation.
At its ninth session,the Negotiating Committee requested the interim Chemical Review Committee to develop guidelines on the scope of such bridging information to be contained in the supporting documentation provided by the notifying country, for review by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee at its tenth session ibid., para. 74.