ECHA has published their latest weekly update (29 May).
Due to changes in the structure of ECHA’s updates, we can no longer provide a link to the updates themselves. To ensure BIVDA members continue to receive this information, we have opted to provide the full ECHA notification.
Combined consultations on candidates for substitution and derogation to exclusion criteria
We have launched biocides consultations on:
- Chlorophacinone (EC 223-003-0, CAS 3691-35-8, PT 14)
- Coumatetralyl (EC 227-424-0, CAS 5836-29-3, PT 14)
- Brodifacoum (EC 259-980-5, CAS 56073-10-0, PT 14)
- Flocoumafen (EC 421-960-0, CAS 90035-08-8, PT 14)
- Bromadiolone (EC 249-205-9, CAS 28772-56-7, PT 14)
- Difenacoum (EC 259-978-4, CAS 56073-07-5, PT 14)
- Difethialone (EC 600-594-7, CAS 104653-34-1, PT 14)
- Alpha-bromadiolone (EC -, CAS-, PT 14)
- Polyvinylpyrrolidone iodine (EC-, CAS 25655-41-8, PT 1 and 3)
- Iodine (EC 231-442-4, CAS 7553-56-2, PT 3)
We have also published a consultation on candidates for substitution only on:
- epsilon-Metofluthrin (EC -, CAS 240494-71-7, PT 18, 19)
Have your say until 23 July 2024.
Read more about the product-types and our new combined consultations.
REACH
Screening report published for 1,2-dichloroethane
We have published a screening report to assess whether the use of 1,2-dichloroethane in articles should be restricted in accordance with REACH Article 69(2).
CLP
Consultation on harmonised classification and labelling
We are looking for comments on the harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) proposal for:
- dodine (ISO); dodecylguanidinium acetate (EC 219-459-5, CAS 2439-10-3).
The proposal format combines the draft (renewal) assessment report prepared according to the Plant Protection Products Regulation and the proposal for CLH under the CLP Regulation. For additional information, consult the Commission’s Guidelines on Active Substances and Plant Protection Products.
For more information on this active substance and on the studies included in the CLH report, consult the draft assessment report on the European Food Safety Authority’s consultation website.
Have your say until 26 July 2024.
New proposal to harmonise classification and labelling
A proposal has been submitted for:
- strontium neodecanoate [1]; strontium di(acetate) [2]; strontium tartrate [3]; strontium oxalate [4]; strontium chloride [5]; strontium nitrate [6]; strontium fluoride [7]; strontium sulphate [8]; strontium carbonate [9]; strontium hydrogen phosphate [10]; strontium hydroxide [11]; strontium bis{5-[bis(carboxymethyl)amino]-3-(carboxymethyl)-4-cyanothiophene-2-carboxylate} [12] EC 208-854-8 [2]; 212-774-9 [3]; 212-415-6 [4]; 233-971-6 [5]; 233-131-9 [6]; 232-000-3 [7]; 231-850-2 [8]; 216-643-7 [9]; 236-615-8 [10]; 242-367-1 [11], CAS 106705-37-7 [1]; 543-94-2 [2]; 868-19-9 [3]; 814-95-9 [4]; 10476-85-4 [5]; 10042-76-9 [6]; 7783-48-4 [7]; 7759-02-6 [8]; 1633-05-2 [9]; 13450-99-2 [10]; 18480-07-4 [11]; 135459-87-9 [12].
Enforcement
Conclusions published from stakeholder workshop on enforcing consumer products
More than 100 participants joined our stakeholder workshop on 24 April 2024. The event focused on the results and recommendations of the enforcement project on chemical compliance of products placed on the EU market (REF-10).
You can find the agenda, presentations and now also the conclusions from the workshop on our website.
IT Tools
New IUCLID format package and updated manual for C&L notifications
We have published a new IUCLID format package for submitting classification and labelling (C&L) notifications through ECHA’s system-to-system submission service.
The latest IUCLID update includes, for example, information on new hazard classes, following the amendment of the Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation.
Also the submission manual has been updated with new business and quality rules.
Board of Appeal
Appeal against a follow-up compliance check decision dismissed
In case A-003-2023, the Board of Appeal decided that ECHA did not commit an error in addressing a follow-up compliance check decision only to the addressee (a lead registrant) of the corresponding initial compliance check decision despite there also being other registrants of the substance in question.
The board also found that the Agency did not breach the principle of equal treatment because the appellant was not in a comparable situation to the other registrants of the substance.
