21.9.2007 Official Journal of the European Union L 24619 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 10952007 of 20 September 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (Text with EEA relevance) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market ('), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof, Whereas: (1)  Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that the Commission undertakes a programme of work for the gradual examination of active substances on the market two years after the date of notification of this Directive. This programme is still ongoing. (2)  The second and third stage of work are laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 451/2000 of 28 February 2000 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the work programme referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC () and Commission Regulation 1490/2002 of 14 August 2002 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and amending Regulation (EC) No 451/2000 (). The fourth stage of work is laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 of 3 December 2004 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (4. () O] L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 2007/52/EC (O] L 214, 17.8.2007, p. 3). (®» OJ L 55, 29.2.2000, p. 25. Regulation as last amended by Regu- lation (EC) No 1044/2003 (O] L 151, 19.6.2003, p. 32). () OJ L 224, 21.8.2002, p. 23. Regulation as last amended by Regu- lation (EC) No 1744/2004 (O] L 311, 8.10.2004, p. 23). (*) OJ L 379, 24.12.2004, p. 13. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2007 (O] L 151, 13.6.2007, p. 26). G) Several substances in the third and fourth stages are still in the assessment phase. It appears necessary to speed up the examination process. Depending on whether a substance is already under peer review or not, for certain aspects of the procedure, different provisions should apply. To speed up the examination process the workflow of the peer review and relationship between notifiers, Member States, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the Commission and the obligations of each of the parties for the implementation of the programme should be adapted without harming the level of safety for health and the environment. The resources of the EFSA should be used efficiently. Where there are clear indications that the active substance concerned meets the criteria referred to in Article 5(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC, and in particular does not have any harmful effects on humans or animal health or on groundwater or any unacceptable influence on the environment, that substance should be included in Annex I to that Directive. Such clear cases would not require detailed scientific advice from the EFSA before the substance is included in Annex I The EFSA should, however, deliver its view on those substances later, in particular to ensure a harmonised approach when Member States apply the uniform principles at the evaluation of authorisations. Where, on the contrary, there are clear indications that an active substance has harmful affects; the Commission is not required to have this clear situation confirmed, so it should have the possibility to decide on non-inclusion without consulting the EFSA. The EFSA should focus on cases where the remaining doubts need to be resolved before a decision on the inclusion of the active substance concerned can be taken. To further speed up procedures, it should be possible to grant a longer withdrawal period in cases where there are such remaining doubts and notifiers agree to withdraw their support of the inclusion of the active substance. This procedure should only apply to cases where there are no clear indications that the substance has harmful effects on humans or animal health or on groundwater or any unacceptable influence on the environment.