The tattoo inks and permanent make-up has recently been in the focus of media. The restriction proposal is currently being discussed in ECHA's scientific committees. Read more on our Hot topics page.
Public consultations on applications for authorisation
ECHA is looking for comments on the applications for authorisation for chromium trioxide (EC 215-607-8, CAS 1333-82-0) for the following uses:
Functional chrome plating of engine valves for automotive applications.
Industrial formulation of a chromium trioxide solution below 0.1 % w/w concentration for the passivation of copper foil used in the manufacture of lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) for motorised vehicles.
More information about the uses that the authorisations are being applied for, including the description of the function of the substance, exposure scenarios, possible alternatives identified by the applicants, and socio-economic information, is available on ECHA’s website.
The deadline for comments is 3 October 2018, 23:59 Helsinki time.
Committees’ opinion on one application for authorisation available
The consolidated opinion of the Committees for Risk Assessment and Socio-economic Analysis for one use of sodium dichromate (EC 234-190-3; CAS 10588-01-9) by H&R Ölwerke Schindler GmbH and H&R Chemisch-Pharmazeutische Spezialitäten GmbH is available on ECHA's website.
One new conclusion document is now available for furfuryl alcohol (EC 202-626-1; CAS 98-00-0), added to the CoRAP list in 2013 and evaluated by Poland.
Board of Appeal decision on the substance evaluation of climbazole
The Board of Appeal has issued its decision on case A-009-2016. The contested ECHA decision required the appellant to perform several studies on climbazole (EC 253-775-4, CAS 38083-17-9), including an extended one-generation reproductive toxicity study (EOGRTS) and in vitro endocrine disruption screening tests. The appellant argued, among other things, that its right to be heard was breached during the course of the substance evaluation procedure.
The Board of Appeal found that, in the specific circumstances of the case, the appellant’s right to be heard had been breached. In particular, the appellant had not been heard on the specific combination of study required and concern investigated, and on some new information that was included in the contested ECHA decision at a late stage of the procedure. The Board of Appeal annulled parts of the contested decision and sent the case back to ECHA.
Welcome to the ECHA website. This site is not fully supported in Internet Explorer 7 (and earlier versions). Please upgrade your Internet Explorer to a newer version.
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our websites.
