Deadline: 2025-06-03
Approximate launch date: 05/06/2025
Deadline to register interest: 03/06/2025
In 2023 EFSA launched a project to promote the use of New Approach Methods (NAMs) into the risk assessment of pesticide residues metabolites (NAMs4PestRes) through the use of the OECD QSAR toolbox, a free available in silico tool managed by ECHA, to enhance connectivity of IUCLID and MetaPath and to implement embedded in silico models. The result will be an automated and standardized workflow for the assessment of mutagenicity (bacterial gene mutation) of pesticide residue metabolites to be implemented in a...
EXCLI J. 2025 Mar 27;24:479-507. doi: 10.17179/excli2024-7822. eCollection 2025.
ABSTRACT
Ethylbenzene (EB) was placed on List 2 for Tier 1 endocrine screening in the U.S. EPA's two-tiered Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) and was scheduled for evaluation under TSCA. Results of toxicology studies on EB were used to evaluate estrogen, androgen, thyroid, and steroidogenic (EATS) endpoints by a Weight of Evidence (WoE) methodology, as required by U.S. EPA and OECD guidelines for evaluating a chemical's endocrine disruptive potential. The WoE method involved problem formulation, systematic literature search and selection, data quality evaluation, relevance weighting of endpoint data, and application of specific interpretive criteria. Data on EB were sufficient to assess its effects on endpoints that would be expected to respond to chemicals that operate via EATS modes of action (MoAs) in various screening assays (Tier 1) and toxicity tests (Tier 2) that evaluate reproduction, development, and sub-chronic and chronic toxicity. In those studies, EB produced a pattern of responses inconsistent with the responses that would be expected for hormones and chemicals known to operate via EATS MoAs. Endocrine-sensitive endpoints that respond to EB administration generally do so only at dose levels above its kinetic maximum dose, indicating a lack of relevance to potential effects at lower dose levels in either the test species or humans. This comprehensive WoE evaluation demonstrates that EB lacks the potential to exhibit endocrine disruptive properties and cannot be deemed an endocrine disruptor or potential endocrine disruptor. Because this WoE evaluation was based largely on Tier 2-level studies of the type considered by the U.S. EPA and OECD to be more definitive than results of Tier 1 EDSP screening results, no additional useful information would be obtained by subjecting EB to further endocrine screening. As such, further endocrine screening of EB would be unjustified from animal welfare perspectives. This analysis supports a regulatory decision to halt further testing of EB for endocrine disruption unless unique and compelling data to the contrary arise. See also the graphical abstract(Fig. 1).
PMID:40376433 | PMC:PMC12078780 | DOI:10.17179/excli2024-7822
This action announces the availability of the EPA's response to a petition received on February 11, 2025, from the Clean Air Council, Communities for a Better Environment, and Natural Resources Defense Council (petitioners). The petition requests that EPA establish a TSCA rule prohibiting the use of hydrogen fluoride (HF) in domestic oil refining to eliminate unreasonable risks to public health and the environment. After careful consideration, EPA has denied the TSCA petition for the reasons set forth in this notice.
“This will be followed by a HFO ban from 2028/29.” A PFAS review is already underway in Europe with the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and ...
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is amending the data submission period for the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) PFAS reporting rule by changing the start date for submissions and making corresponding changes to the end dates for the submission period, i.e., the data submission period begins on April 13, 2026, and ends on October 13, 2026, with an alternate end date for small manufacturers reporting exclusively as article importers of April 13, 2027. As promulgated in October 2023, the regulation requires manufacturers (including importers) of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in any year between 2011-2022 to report certain data to EPA related to exposure and environmental and health effects. This change is necessary because EPA requires more time to prepare the reporting application to collect this data. The Agency is separately considering reopening certain aspects of the rule to public comment. The delayed reporting date ensures that EPA has adequate time to consider the public comments and propose and finalize any modifications to the rule before the submission period begins.
The European Commission (EC) requested that the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) assess the risks posed by certain hexavalent chromium substances.
... Chemicals Agency (ECHA). - 11th Euratom Conference on reactor safety ... Chemical Industries in Sweden (IKEM). - Oceans commissioner Costas ...
The European Commission (EC) requested that the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) assess the risks posed by certain hexavalent chromium substances…
... Chemicals Authority (ECHA, Helsinki; www.echa.europa.eu) or the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, Washington, DC; www.epa.gov). Phthalates ...
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces the availability of and solicits public comment on the following Information Collection Request (ICR) that EPA is planning to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): "Consolidation of Certain Reporting and Recordkeeping Under Section 8 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (EPA ICR No. 2703.02 and OMB Control No. 2070-0224)." This ICR represents a renewal of an existing ICR that is currently approved through November 30, 2025. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval under the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the information collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and comment. EPA is also consolidating two ICRs covering reporting and recordkeeping activities under TSCA Section 8(a) to streamline the presentation of the paperwork burden estimates for these various activities and eliminate any duplication.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces the availability of and solicits public comment on the following Information Collection Request (ICR) that EPA is planning to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) "TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Review of New Chemical Substances and Significant New Use Rules for New and Existing Chemical Substances (EPA ICR No. 1188.16 and OMB Control No. 2070-0038)." This ICR represents a renewal of an existing ICR that is currently approved through December 31, 2025. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval under the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the information collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and comment.
The initial document “Recommendation of the BPC Working Groups: In situ generated active substances – Risk assessment and implications on data requirements for active substances generated in situ and their precursors” was agreed by the four BPC working groups (APCP, Efficacy, TOX and ENV WGs) in 2016 and 2017 and published on the ECHA website in 2017. At their meeting in July 2019, the Biocidal Competent Authorities agreed on the necessity to further develop recommendations also for the biocidal products of in situ generated active substances - isASs (Member State's Competent Authorities for biocidal products, 2019). Therefore, based on the collected experience with the granted approvals of isAS and the assessment of their precursors, the recommendations have been updated (version 2) and a new part on the biocidal products has been included. Current document “Recommendation of the BPC Working Groups (version 2): In situ generated active substances and their products - Information requirements and risk assessment for approval and authorisation.” was discussed in all four BPC working groups and agreed in March 2025. Principles applied to “conventional” active substances and biocidal products apply also to the isAS and their products, unless specified otherwise in this document. These recommendations are focusing on additional information needed and on the particularities in the assessment of isAS, their precursor(s) and BPs. These recommendations are intended for BPR applicants for active substance approval and authorisation of biocidal products and for evaluating Member State Competent Authorities (eCAs).
The Management Board welcomes the Annual Report 2024, fulfilling the requirements of the REACH Regulation (General Report)1 and those of the ECHA Financial Regulation (Consolidated Annual Activity Report)2. We consider that this report provides a comprehensive account of the activities carried out by ECHA during 2024, the performance of the Agency against the expected inputs, outputs and outcomes defined in the Single Programming Document 2024-20263. It also represents a fair overview of the evolution of ECHA’s budget, staffing, management, and its internal management system strategy and framework. This assessment is based on our analysis of all parts of the report, including the activities carried out, achievements, financial information, results of audits, retrospective evaluations, and the assessment of the internal control system, as well as the risks related to ECHA’s activities together with the corresponding mitigating measures.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of new chemical submissions under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), including information about the receipt of a Premanufacture notice (PMN), Significant New Use Notice (SNUN), Microbial Commercial Activity Notice (MCAN), and an amendment to a previously submitted notice; test information; a biotechnology exemption application; an application for a test marketing exemption (TME); and a notice of commencement of manufacture (defined by statute to include import) (NOC) for a new chemical substance. This document also provides a periodic status report on the new chemical substances that are currently under EPA review or have recently concluded review. EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt of this information, as required by TSCA, and an opportunity to comment. This document covers the period from 2/ 1/2025 to 2/25/2025.
It is the strictest law to date regulating chemical substances ... substances with a new European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in Helsinki, Finland.
Following a request from the European Commission, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has assessed the risks posed by certain hexavalent chromium ...
COUNCIL DECISION appointing 11 members of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires EPA to publish in the Federal Register a statement of its findings after its review of certain TSCA submissions when EPA makes a finding that a new chemical substance or significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. Such statements apply to premanufacture notices (PMNs), microbial commercial activity notices (MCANs), and significant new use notices (SNUNs) submitted to EPA under TSCA. This document presents statements of findings made by EPA on such submissions during the period from February 1 to February 28, 2025.
Toxics. 2025 Mar 28;13(4):251. doi: 10.3390/toxics13040251.
ABSTRACT
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), while possessing desirable properties for human society, have increasingly raised concerns due to their environmental persistence, bioaccumulation, and ecotoxicity. One of the major challenges with PFASs is the inconsistent adoption of regulatory strategies by authorities across different countries and regions, making it difficult to address the issue on a global scale. To obtain a global overview of PFAS regulatory patterns, this study utilized the most recent PFAS regulatory databases across different jurisdictions, both local and global. Among all geographic regions, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and European Union (EU) Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) encompass the most jurisdictions for PFASs. However, most PFASs are without regulation under the current regulatory status. We also assessed the regulatory ecotoxicity status of PFASs under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of the USEPA. The results showed that 36.3% of PFASs are of Unknown or Variable composition, Complex reaction products, or Biological materials (UVCB) and classified as E;P (persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic), followed by 31.3% as P (persistent) and 13.2% as P;S (persistent and toxic). We highlight the regulatory patterns, industrial applications, and categorization of PFASs under different regulatory frameworks. The need for international cooperation and harmonized regulatory standards to mitigate PFAS pollution is also addressed. A coordinated effort involving regulatory agencies, industry, researchers, and the public will be essential to facilitate harmonized regulations of PFASs and ensure a sustainable and healthy environment.
PMID:40278567 | PMC:PMC12030800 | DOI:10.3390/toxics13040251
... substances every decade, adding extra costs and paperwork to their business operations. Additionally, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) will ...
Council Decision of ... appointing eleven Member of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) - Adoption
ECHA - European Chemicals Agency; please note that the citation dates used for studies sourced from the ECHA website are the dates the dossiers ...
... chemical tech. The 3-year project is funded under the PREPARE ... Chemicals Agency (ECHA). This also affects the use of fluoroelastomers ...
Americans placed a great deal of importance on product affordability, U.S. jobs and manufacturing in addition to impact on the environment and human health when EPA is conducting reviews of new, innovative chemistries.
... chemical use in the European Union (EU). The ECHA (European Chemical Agency) website provides the latest updates on EDs, with the most recent list ...
... Chemicals Agency (ECHA). This also affects the use of fluoroelastomers ... chemical process technology and electrical applications. In the ...
A EU Chemicals Agency (ECHA) review of the categorization of ethanol used in disinfectants may lead to it being deemed a carcinogenic and reproductive ...
ECHA – Chromium (VI) restriction preparation: what you need to know. Chemicals, Webinars · ECHA – New ECHA chemical data availability system – Part II.
... Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and banned in the EU since 2009. Despite this, Dormex is just one on a long list of highly hazardous chemicals which ...
EPA is proposing significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for certain chemical substances that were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs) and are also subject to an Order issued by EPA pursuant to TSCA. The SNURs require persons who intend to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) or process any of these chemical substances for an activity that is proposed as a significant new use by this rulemaking to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. The required notification initiates EPA's evaluation of the conditions of that use for that chemical substance. In addition, the manufacture or processing for the significant new use may not commence until EPA has conducted a review of the required notification, made an appropriate determination regarding that notification, and taken such actions as required by that determination.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires EPA to publish in the Federal Register a statement of its findings after its review of certain TSCA submissions when EPA makes a finding that a new chemical substance or significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. Such statements apply to premanufacture notices (PMNs), microbial commercial activity notices (MCANs), and significant new use notices (SNUNs) submitted to EPA under TSCA. This document presents statements of findings made by EPA on such submissions during the period from January 1, 2025 to January 31, 2025. This document also presents statements of findings on submissions made by EPA during earlier time periods that were inadvertently omitted from notices for those time periods that were identified during a quality control review.
... Chemicals Agency (ECHA) submitted in 2022. Clay targets are typically manufactured using binders such as petroleum resin or pitch, or coal tar ...
Reclassifying ethanol as a carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reprotoxic substance - something the European Chemicals Agency seems likely to do in the ...
They include new requirements for the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to establish databases within the common data platform containing information ...
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is postponing the effectiveness of certain regulatory provisions of the final rule entitled "Trichloroethylene (TCE); Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)" for 90 days pending judicial review. Specifically, this postponement applies to the conditions imposed on the uses with TSCA exemptions.
ECHA – Chromium (VI) restriction preparation: what you need to know · Chemicals, Webinars · ECHA – New ECHA chemical data availability system – Part ...
Rīga meeting brings together EMA, EEA, EU-OSHA, ECDC, ENISA, CEPOL, BEREC, ECHA ... chemical products, transportation, IT and cybersecurity solutions ...
... Chemicals Agency (ECHA), which recognised resorcinol as an endocrine disruptor. However, the ECHA did not classify it as a “substance of very ...
Registration of chemical substances. Evaluation of the substances by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Authorization for substances that are ...
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has announced new testing of dozens of substances, including some used in cosmetics, personal care and fragrance.
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has earmarked 13 substances for assessment due to their suspected harmful effects on health and the environment – ...
Under EU law, testing on animals must only be conducted as a last resort – yet the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) requested an archaic chemical test ...
It would define hazardous chemicals as substances with highly toxic ... ECHA also adopted three substance evaluation decisions prepared by EU ...
Final opinions from ECHA's scientific committees are expected in 2025, and a decision by the European Commission could follow soon thereafter. This ...
In the judgment under appeal, the court did not agree with the conclusion of the European Chemicals Agency's (ECHA) RAC. The court "explained that ...
In the judgment under appeal, the court did not agree with the conclusion of the European Chemicals Agency's (ECHA) RAC. The court “explained that ...
In the Federal Register of January 7, 2025, EPA announced the availability of and solicited public comment on a draft risk evaluation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for Dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP) (1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,2-dicyclohexyl ester) (CASRN 84-61-7). This document reopens the comment period, which is scheduled to end on March 10, 2025, for 60 days.
In response to requests from stakeholders, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is amending the deadline for reporting pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Health and Safety Data Reporting rule, which requires manufacturers (including importers) of 16 specified chemical substances to report certain lists and copies of unpublished health and safety studies to EPA. Specifically, EPA is amending the deadline from March 13, 2025, to June 11, 2025, for one of the 16 chemical substances (vinyl chloride) and to September 9, 2025, for the remaining 15 chemical substances. The Health and Safety Data Reporting Rule requires manufacturers (including importers) of certain chemical substances to submit lists and copies of certain unpublished health and safety studies to EPA.
05 March 2025 - News release ECHA Board of Appeal to transition to new model
26 February 2025 - News release ECHA updates annual evaluation statistics
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) today commended the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) announcement the Agency will reconsider the 2024 Risk Evaluation Framework Rule, which governs EPA’s review of existing chemicals in commerce under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) today commended the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) announcement the Agency will reconsider the 2024 Risk Evaluation Framework Rule, which governs EPA’s review of existing chemicals in commerce under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) commended introduction of a joint Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution by Representatives Clay Higgins (LA-3) and William Timmons (SC-4) providing for congressional disapproval of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) amendments to the TSCA New Chemicals Procedural Regulations under the Biden Administration.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) commended introduction of a joint Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution by Representatives Clay Higgins (LA-3) and William Timmons (SC-4) providing for congressional disapproval of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) amendments to the TSCA New Chemicals Procedural Regulations under the Biden Administration.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) today commended the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) announcement the Agency will reconsider the 2024 Risk Evaluation Framework Rule, which governs EPA’s review of existing chemicals in commerce under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) announced on February 26, 2025, that it has updated its annual statistics on evaluation progress.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is announcing the rescheduled meeting dates of the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) that had been previously scheduled for February 2025 to consider and review the draft risk evaluation for 1,3- butadiene. The rescheduled preparatory meeting for the SACC to consider the scope and clarity of the revised draft charge questions for the peer review will now be held on March 25, 2025, and the rescheduled peer review meeting for the SACC to consider the draft documents and public comments will now be held on April 1 to 4, 2025. As previously announced, these meetings will be virtual public meetings of the SACC, with the public invited to comment on the scope and clarity of the revised draft charge questions for the peer review and the draft risk evaluation and related documents, including a new supplement of preliminarily refined risk estimates for 1,3-butadiene released from facilities in advance of and during the peer review meeting. The SACC will consider the comments during their discussions.
In the Federal Register of January 16, 2025, EPA announced the availability of and solicited public comment on the draft scope of the risk evaluation to be conducted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for vinyl chloride (ethene, chloro-; CASRN 75-01-4). This document extends/reopens the comment period, which is scheduled to end on March 3, 2025, for 30 days.
In the Federal Register of January 14, 2025, EPA proposed a regulation to address the unreasonable risk of injury to human health presented by C.I. Pigment Violet 29 (CASRN 81-33-4, also known as PV29), under its conditions of use as documented in EPA's January 2021 Risk Evaluation for PV29 and the September 2022 Revised Risk Determination for PV29 prepared under TSCA. This document reopens the comment period, which is scheduled to end on February 28, 2025, for 60 days.
This is the second year for implementation of our current strategy statement 2024-2028. Our vision, chemical safety through science, collaboration and knowledge, has informed the actions presented here and will continue to guide us as we deliver our strategy over the next four years. At the core of implementing our strategic goals is our legal mandate and the protection of health and the environment through our work on chemical safety. We will continue to implement our legal mandate by providing transparent, independent and high-quality scientific opinions and decisions, by collaborating with our EU institutional partners and Member States as well as industry and NGO stakeholders and by sharing and advancing knowledge and understanding on chemical safety.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires EPA to publish in the Federal Register a statement of its findings after its review of certain TSCA submissions when EPA makes a finding that a new chemical substance or significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. Such statements apply to premanufacture notices (PMNs), microbial commercial activity notices (MCANs), and significant new use notices (SNUNs) submitted to EPA under TSCA. This document presents statements of findings made by EPA on such submissions during the period from September 1, 2024, to December 31, 2024.
EPA is required under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to make information publicly available and to publish information in the Federal Register pertaining to submissions under TSCA, including notice of receipt of a Premanufacture notice (PMN), Significant New Use Notice (SNUN) or Microbial Commercial Activity Notice (MCAN), including an amended notice or test information; an exemption application (Biotech exemption); an application for a test marketing exemption (TME), both pending and/or concluded; a notice of commencement (NOC) of manufacture (including import) for new chemical substances; and a periodic status report on new chemical substances that are currently under EPA review or have recently concluded review. This document covers the period from 12/01/2024 to 12/31/2024.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of new chemical submissions under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), including information about the receipt of a Premanufacture notice (PMN), Significant New Use Notice (SNUN), Microbial Commercial Activity Notice (MCAN), an amendment to a previously submitted notice; receipt of test information; a biotechnology exemption application; an application for a test marketing exemption (TME); and a notice of commencement of manufacture (including import) (NOC) for a new chemical substance; and a periodic status report on new chemical substances that are currently under EPA review or have recently concluded review. This document covers the period from 1/01/2025 to 1/31/2025.
In testimony delivered this morning before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on the Environment, the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) President & CEO, Chris Jahn, called on lawmakers to support practical science-based policy improvements to the nation’s primary chemical management law.
In testimony delivered this morning before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on the Environment, the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) President & CEO, Chris Jahn, called on lawmakers to support practical science-based policy improvements to the nation’s primary chemical management law.
Today, the American Chemistry Council’s High Phthalates Panel issued the following statement on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) completion of a final manufacturer-requested risk evaluation for DINP under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Today, the American Chemistry Council’s High Phthalates Panel issued the following statement on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) completion of a final manufacturer-requested risk evaluation for DINP under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Today, the American Chemistry Council’s High Phthalates Panel issued the following statement on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) completion of a final manufacturer-requested risk evaluation for DINP under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Today, the American Chemistry Council’s High Phthalates Panel issued the following statement on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) completion of a final manufacturer-requested risk evaluation for DIDP under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Today, the American Chemistry Council’s High Phthalates Panel issued the following statement on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) completion of a final manufacturer-requested risk evaluation for DIDP under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Today, the American Chemistry Council’s High Phthalates Panel issued the following statement on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) completion of a final manufacturer-requested risk evaluation for DIDP under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
ACC’s Formaldehyde Panel issued the following statement on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s completion of the final risk evaluation for formaldehyde under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
ACC’s Formaldehyde Panel issued the following statement on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s completion of the final risk evaluation for formaldehyde under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
ACC’s Formaldehyde Panel issued the following statement on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s completion of the final risk evaluation for formaldehyde under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Guidance for the application of the criteria covering effects on the aquatic compartment was developed by OECD and incorporated as Annexes 9 and 10 in the ‘Globally Harmonised System of classification and labelling of chemicals (UN GHS)’ (Fourth revised edition, 2011, https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/danger/publi/ghs/ghs_rev04/English/ST-SG-AC1030-Rev4e.pdf). The text in part 4, even more so in some of the Annexes to this chapter, is largely based on the text in UN GHS. The guidance given in Annexes 9 and 10 of UN GHS relates to substances, but not mixtures. Some parts have therefore been slightly revised to take into account recent developments and additional guidance documents provided by ECHA. Furthermore guidance on the classification of mixtures has been brought into this chapter as well as classification examples for both substances and mixtures.
The Chlorine Panel of the American Chemistry Council today expressed deep disappointment in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) final Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk management rule on carbon tetrachloride (CTC).
The Chlorine Panel of the American Chemistry Council today expressed deep disappointment in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) final Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk management rule on carbon tetrachloride (CTC).
The Chlorine Panel of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) recognizes the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) efforts to regulate trichloroethylene (TCE) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to mitigate unreasonable risk to human health and the environment. While ACC acknowledges EPA made several important adjustments in the final rule, concerns remain about the potential impacts on industries that rely on TCE for critical applications.
The Chlorine Panel of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) acknowledges the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) efforts to regulate perchloroethylene (PCE) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to mitigate unreasonable risk to human health and the environment. While the Panel recognizes EPA made certain changes in the final rule, it also raises significant concerns about the potential impacts on industries that depend on PCE for critical applications, along with compliance challenges with the new Workplace Chemical Protection Program (WCPP).
The Chlorine Panel of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) recognizes the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) efforts to regulate trichloroethylene (TCE) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to mitigate unreasonable risk to human health and the environment. While ACC acknowledges EPA made several important adjustments in the final rule, concerns remain about the potential impacts on industries that rely on TCE for critical applications.
The Chlorine Panel of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) acknowledges the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) efforts to regulate perchloroethylene (PCE) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to mitigate unreasonable risk to human health and the environment. While the Panel recognizes EPA made certain changes in the final rule, it also raises significant concerns about the potential impacts on industries that depend on PCE for critical applications, along with compliance challenges with the new Workplace Chemical Protection Program (WCPP).
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued the following statement today on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) release of a final procedural rule for new chemicals reviews under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued the following statement today on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) release of a final procedural rule for new chemicals reviews under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Today, the American Chemistry Council’s 1,3-Butadiene TSCA Risk Consortium issued the following statement on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) completion of a draft Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk evaluation for 1,3-Butadiene.
Today, the American Chemistry Council’s 1,3-Butadiene TSCA Risk Consortium issued the following statement on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) completion of a draft Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk evaluation for 1,3-Butadiene.
Despite the level of major scientific, legal, federal agency, state, Congressional, public and peer reviewer concerns raised this year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is rushing forward to issuing a final Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk evaluation for formaldehyde by the end of the year which would require risk management, including potential bans or unachievable workplace standards, within two years.
Despite the level of major scientific, legal, federal agency, state, Congressional, public and peer reviewer concerns raised this year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is rushing forward to issuing a final Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk evaluation for formaldehyde by the end of the year which would require risk management, including potential bans or unachievable workplace standards, within two years.
Despite the level of major scientific, legal, federal agency, state, Congressional, public and peer reviewer concerns raised this year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is rushing forward to issuing a final Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk evaluation for formaldehyde by the end of the year which would require risk management, including potential bans or unachievable workplace standards, within two years.
Fertilisers may contain contaminants/impurities or intentionally added substances of concern that can impact human health and the environment, e.g., through contamination of groundwater, surface water and drinking water, accumulation in crops or animal stock, etc. Such contaminants/impurities and intentionally added substances of concern are partly addressed in the new Fertilising Products Regulation (EU) 2019/1009 that sets requirements for the different categories of products. Not all potential contaminants/impurities or intentionally added substances of concern are indeed covered. In addition, the Fertilising Products Regulation does not cover fertilising products marketed under national rules. In case considered necessary to address certain identified risks for human health and/or the environment, the idea is to assess whether the REACH Regulation (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of Chemicals) could be used. Previous activities being carried out by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in the field of fertilisers (e.g., preparation of the Annex XV dossier for the restriction of calcium cyanamide) have raised some questions on how a regulatory management option analysis (RMOA) and analysis of alternatives (AOA) could be best conducted. Under that context, The European Commission – Directorate General Environment commissioned this study to Arcadis and Arcadia International E.E.I.G. together with DHI and Michel Vander Straeten Consulting Services. The study has three separated but interlinked objectives: 1) To assess the presence of contaminants/impurities in fertilisers and to produce a pre-RMOA and a pre-Annex XV dossier for the ones presenting potential risks to human health and the environment (Task 1). 2) To identify potential fertilisers of concern as a result of the effects of their constituents or their degradation products on the environment, including contamination of natural resources, or on human health via the environment; and to assess the possibilities for substitution (Task 2); and 3) To assess the challenges of an analysis of alternatives for fertilisers (Task 3).
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued the following statement on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) announced proposal to delay the implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a)(7) Reporting Rule, which requires any manufacturer of PFAS or those importing PFAS, including articles, to report a broad range of data into the Central Data Exchange (CDX).
The general rule is that only one bridging principle can be applied per hazard class evaluated for the untested mixture. The ECHA Guidance on the application of the CLP criteria6 states that: “[..] only one bridging principle could be applied in the evaluation of a hazard class with the exception of aerosols, where a mixture classified based on another bridging principle is used in an aerosol container. However, different bridging principles may apply to different hazard classes [..]”. Due to the similarity requirements of the bridging principle ‘substantially similar mixtures’ for the composition of the two concerned mixtures i.e. identity of ingredients and concentrations any approach that leads to apply more than one bridging principle per hazard class cannot be implemented by duty holders and such approach constitutes a breach with existing rules for the bridging principle ‘substantially similar mixtures. For example, applying the bridging principle ‘dilution’ for a defined sub-set of ingredients from the mixture composition together with the bridging principle ‘substantially similar mixtures’ is not possible.
This document is the Guidance on the Application of the CLP Criteria. It is a comprehensive technical and scientific document on the application of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP), which replaced the Dangerous Substances Directive 67/548/EEC (DSD) and the Dangerous Preparations Directive 1999/45/EC (DPD) in a staggered way. CLP is based on the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) and is implementing the provisions of the GHS within the EU. The objective of this document is to provide detailed guidance on the application of the CLP criteria for physical, health and environmental hazards. The guidance is developed to primarily assist manufacturers, importers and downstream users in applying the classification and labelling criteria, and it also includes practical examples. It is also assumed to be the guidance on classification and labelling for Competent Authorities in the Member States (MS CA), for the Commission services and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).