Member registrants will start receiving dossier evaluation decisions in 2019
As of 2019, ECHA will send its dossier evaluation decisions to all non-compliant registrants of a substance. Other changes will be implemented at the same time, so you need to take a proactive role to be ready.
Update of REACH registrations database – publication of new data frozen until January 2019
ECHA’s publication of REACH registration data will be affected by development work taking place between October and December 2018. During this time, we will not publish any new data from REACH registrations.
The development work includes the update of our dissemination system, which is required for the publication of data from dossiers (initial or updates) created using the latest version of IUCLID (version 6.3), due to be launched at the end of October. At the same time, we will re-process old submissions in accordance with our policy announced in April 2016.
As of January 2019, we will retrospectively publish the non-confidential data from dossiers submitted or updated between October and December 2018, and resume the regular updates of our registered substances database.
Call for input: new database under the Waste Framework Directive
ECHA will establish a new database on Candidate List substances in articles. The database will contain information submitted by companies producing, importing or selling articles containing these substances. The task is based on the revised Waste Framework Directive that entered into force in July 2018.
A first draft scenario for building the database is now available for consultation. Provide your feedback by 9 October 2018.
The conference, organised by the European Commission will bring together authorities and stakeholders from all REACH, CLP and biocides sectors to discuss how these chemical regulations are being enforced in the EU. The conference will focus on identifying and sharing best practices in enforcement from EU countries and stakeholders.
Committees’ opinions on applications for authorisation available
The consolidated opinions of the Committees for Risk Assessment (RAC) and Socio-economic Analysis (SEAC) are available on our website for:
three uses of chromium trioxide (EC 215-607-8, CAS 1333-82-0) by HAPOC GmbH & Co KG.;
two uses of pentazinc chromate octahydroxide (EC 256-418-0, CAS 49663-84-5) by Aviall Services Inc and Finalin GmbH; and
one use of dichromium tris(chromate) (EC 246-356-2, CAS 24613-89-6) by Wesco Aircraft EMEA, LTD;
one use of strontium chromate (EC 232-142-6, CAS 7789-06-2) by Wesco Aircraft EMEA, LTD; PPG Central (UK) Ltd in its legal capacity as only representative of PRC DeSoto International Inc. –OR5; and Cytec Engineered Materials Ltd in its legal capacity as only representative of Cytec Industries Inc.
Our free Biocides Day conference on 24 October will cover a wide range of topics, from endocrine disruptors, product families and in situ substances to Union authorisation, enforcement and Brexit. This is an opportunity to get up-to-date with latest developments, hear practical advice and discuss any challenges. If you need advice on a specific issue, you can book a one-to-one session with one of our experts.
The training on 25 October is full but will be recorded and made available. If your plans change, cancel your registration at: email@example.com.
Two decisions on substance evaluation appeals published
The Board of Appeal has published decisions in cases A-007-2017 and A-008-2017. The separate appeals had been brought against the same ECHA decision concerning 2,2',6,6'-tetra-tert-butyl-4,4'-methylenediphenol.
In both cases the appellants challenged the requirement to provide information on an extended one-generation reproductive toxicity study (EOGRTS). The Board of Appeal annulled this part of the contested decision in both cases on the grounds that the Agency had made a mistake in the choice of procedure to request that information. As the EOGRTS was a standard information requirement at the time the contested decision was adopted, the Agency should have examined whether requesting the study under substance evaluation prejudiced the rights of any of the registrants. In particular, the Agency should have taken into account the fact that the relevant registrations had been submitted at different tonnage levels.