News from ECHA
| Follow our Biocides Stakeholders' Workshop online Our Biocides Stakeholders' Workshop takes place on 29-30 April 2025.
The registration to join the event in Helsinki is closed, but we will stream the plenary workshop on Tuesday, 29 April, on our website and on our YouTube channel.
Join us online to follow the discussions and get updates on the latest developments in biocides. |
|---|
|
|---|
|
|---|
|
ECHA
Reminder: website maintenance on 25-28 April 2025 Due to some maintenance work, our websites will not be available between Friday, 25 April from 16:00 to Monday, 28 April until 13:00 Helsinki time.
Our IT tools are not affected and you can continue using them normally. We apologise for the inconvenience. Project to identify methodologies for biodegradation tests We have contracted Fraunhofer Gesellschaft and Technical University of Denmark to work on identifying methodologies for biodegradation tests of difficult-to-test substances that can be used for regulatory decision-making.
The outcome of the project will be used to develop guidance for the degradation testing of difficult-to-test substances. |
|---|
|
|---|
|
|---|
|
REACH
New substance evaluation conclusions published Furan, 2-ethoxy-3,3,4,4,5-pentafluorotetrahydro-2,5-bis[1,2,2,2-tetrafluoro-1-(trifluoromethyl)ethyl]- (EC 484-410-9, CAS 920979-28-8), evaluated by Spain.
Reaction mass of 1,1,1,2,3,3‐hexafluoro‐3‐methoxy‐2‐(trifluoromethyl)propane and 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4‐nonafluoro‐4‐methoxybutane (EC 422-270-2, CAS 163702-08-7), evaluated by Spain.
Trade name: 3M(TM) NOVEC(TM) ENGINEERED FLUID HFE-7000 (EC 484-450-7, CAS 1610350-01-0), evaluated by Spain. |
|---|
|
|---|
|
|---|
|
Board of Appeal
Board of Appeal mainly dismissed an appeal in a compliance check case Case A-002-2024 concerns a compliance check. ECHA rejected read-across adaptations in a registration dossier and required the appellant to fill a number of data gaps. The appellant argued that ECHA’s decision was incorrect and submitted additional information to the Board of Appeal to support its read-across adaptations.
The Board of Appeal held that ECHA did not commit an error in considering that the information contained in the dossier at the time of the decision was insufficient. It also held that the additional information submitted in the appeal proceedings cannot alter that conclusion, as it was not contained in the dossier at the relevant time. However, that information may be assessed in a follow-up procedure.
The appeal was therefore mainly rejected, but the Board of Appeal corrected a mistake in the decision concerning the route of administration for certain required studies. |
|---|
|
|---|
|
|---|
