ECHA’s committees conclude on two restrictions and 15 harmonised classification and labelling opinions
The Committee for Socio-economic Analysis (SEAC) adopted its opinion on granules and mulches used as infill material in synthetic turf pitches or in loose forms on playgrounds. The Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) adopted its opinion on the restriction proposal on N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF).
Public consultation on SEAC's draft opinion on restricting N,N-dimethylformamide
Stakeholders are invited to comment on the draft opinion of the Committee for Socio-economic Analysis (SEAC) concerning the restriction proposal by Italy on N,N-dimethylformamide (EC 200-679-5, CAS 68-12-2).
The public consultation is open until 25 November 2019.
Webinar: Call for evidence on a possible restriction on the placing on the market and use of lead in ammunition (shot and bullets) and fishing tackle
10 October 2019, 11:00-12:30 Helsinki time (EET)
Join our webinar to find out about ECHA’s restriction proposal on the placing on the market and use of lead in ammunition (shot and bullets) and fishing tackle. The session is intended to clarify the scope of ECHA’s investigation and answer your questions related to the call for evidence. It is particularly useful for those planning to provide information for the preparation of the restriction proposal.
Committees’ opinion on four applications for authorisation available
The consolidated opinions of the Committees for Risk Assessment and Socio-economic Analysis for six uses of chromium trioxide (EC 215-607-8, CAS 1333-82-0) by Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co.KG; Schell GmbH & Co. KG Armaturentechnologie; KEUCO GmbH & Co KG; Ideal Standard - Vidima AD and Ideal Standard Produktions-GmbH are available on our website.
Postponement of compliance deadline for reporting to poison centres
The CARACAL (expert group on CLP) has agreed unanimously to the European Commission’s proposed changes to Annex VIII to CLP. The Commission is now proceeding with adopting a delegated act, which will, among other things, postpone the first compliance date for harmonised reporting to poison centres, for mixtures intended for consumer use, from 1 January 2020 to 1 January 2021. Entry into force is expected later this year. Other compliance dates will not be affected. The Commission is also progressing with solving some of the concerns raised by stakeholders on the workability of the notification requirements and another amendment to Annex VIII is expected in 2020.
Study finds EU regulatory framework ready for the next generation of nanomaterials
A study commissioned by the EU nanomaterials observatory (EUON) has found that the current EU regulatory framework for characterising and identifying “next generation” nanomaterials is able to address the majority of them and that no significant changes will be needed in the near future. The study looked into “next generation” nanomaterials and whether the current terminology used in the EU chemicals regulations, as well as the implementation of the current legal requirements for identifying nanomaterials, are likely to pose technical challenges.
Webinar: Revised REACH information requirements for nanoforms: are you ready?
12 November 2019, 11:00-13:30 Helsinki time (EET)
Join our webinar to learn more about the revised REACH Annexes for the nanoforms of substances that begin to apply as of 1 January 2020. The first part explains what a nanoform is, how to build a set of similar nanoforms and how to fulfil data requirements for their characterisation. The second part introduces new IUCLID fields for reporting the characterisation parameters of nanoforms and gives practical examples on how to use the different fields. You will also have the chance to ask questions from our experts.
Court confirms Bisphenol A as an endocrine disrupter to human health
On 20 September 2019, the General Court issued a judgment in case T-636/17 dismissing in its entirety an action brought against ECHA’s decision to include bisphenol A (EC 201-245-8, CAS 80-05-7) in the Candidate List on the basis that it is a substance of a very high concern having endocrine disrupting properties for human health. The Court found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate legal or scientific error by ECHA rendering the identification as unlawful or implausible.
Court judgment on making 1-bromopropane subject to REACH authorisation
On 20 September 2019, the General Court issued a judgment in case T-610/17 dismissing in its entirety an action seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decision to include 1-bromopropane (nPB) (EC 203-445-0, CAS 106-94-5) in the Authorisation List, following ECHA’s Annex XIV recommendation.
The main points from the judgment relevant to ECHA are that:
ECHA can use grouping considerations, i.e. interchangeability with a substance already in Annex XIV, in its Annex XIV recommendation. In doing so, it is sufficient to establish the existence of a potential risk of substitution.
ECHA did not commit any error of assessment when computing the tonnage of nPB within the scope of authorisation, and when assessing the potential risk of substitution of nPB with trichloroethylene. In assessing tonnage data, ECHA is entitled to rely primarily on registration data and, in case there is inconsistency with tonnage data provided in the public consultation, to use worst-case assumptions.
For the first time, the General Court rules on decisions of the Board of Appeal in substance evaluation cases
The General Court took a position on the scope and intensity of the power of review of the Board of Appeal (BoA) on appeals against ECHA decisions under substance evaluation (T-125/17, BASF Grenzach v ECHA; and T-755/17, Germany v ECHA). The two judgements supported the position of the BoA and rejected the arguments of BASF and Germany in the two cases.
The Court confirmed that the BoA is empowered to review ECHA decisions not only concerning legal aspects, but also concerning scientific and technical aspects. The judgments confirmed that:
the BoA is not required to conduct a completely new (‘de novo’) evaluation,
the procedure before the BoA has an adversarial nature,and
the BoA is to mainly confine itself to examining the pleas and arguments of the appellant.
The Court further confirmed that the intensity of the review carried out by the BoA can be greater than that of a review carried out by the EU courts in cases involving the assessment of highly complex scientific and technical facts and that the BoA is not limited to verifying manifest errors.
Two appeals against dossier evaluation follow-up decisions declared inadmissible
In cases A-012-2019 and A-013-2019, the Chairman of the Board of Appeal declared appeals made against two acts adopted by the Agency in follow-up to earlier dossier evaluation decisions as inadmissible.
The Chairman decided that the Board of Appeal is not competent to decide on the appeals because the Board of Appeal does not have the power of review for such acts. They can only be challenged before the General Court.
We're considering some changes to the ECHA Newsletter website and want your views on its functionalities and structure. If you want to have your say, use the link below and send us your contact details by Friday, 27 September 2019. We’ll be in contact with you in the near future.