From Health Canada:

Reed diffusers are home fragrance products that consist of a bottle, scented oils and reeds – thin wooden sticks used to diffuse the oil. Examples of reed diffusers are shown below (note that bottles and oils can come in various colours and sizes).

Health Canada has received reports of children ingesting the contents of reed diffuser products. There are several different types of oils used in reed diffuser products, some of which may be harmful if ingested. The colourful, fragrant oils and decorative material are likely to attract a child’s attention. Once the diffuser container is filled with the scented oil, the reeds are simply dropped into the filled bottle with one end submerged in the oil, making it readily accessible to toddlers or young children exploring their environment.

Under the Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations, 2001 (CCCR, 2001), all chemical products, including the oils used in reed diffusers, must be assessed by the manufacturer or importer to determine whether the product falls within any of the hazard categories specified by Parts 1 to 5 of the CCCR, 2001, such as “toxic” or “flammable”. Once assessed, these products may be subject to the labelling and packaging requirements of the CCCR, 2001. A product’s hazard category indicates whether any prohibition applies, if there are specific packaging requirements, such as child-resistant containers, and what statements must appear on the label of the container.

We will keep you informed of any new developments, and if you are a manufacturer or importer of reed diffusers and oils contact us @ Nexreg to see how we can help you comply with the CCCR, 2001.

From the Globe and Mail:

Michael Moffatt, whose business, NexReg Compliance, helps companies navigate overseas regulations, still takes a certain pleasure in pointing to the European Union’s Commission Regulation 2257/94 as an example of why foreign markets can be hard to navigate.

For years, the rule set out the standards for the appropriate condition and curvature of bananas, including a minimum length of 14 centimetres and grade of 27 millimetres.

Regulation 2257/94 was not to be confused with Regulation No 1677/88 – which laid down the rules for cucumbers.

Tired of having the “bendy banana” regulation used as a cudgel against them, EU members voted in 2008 to repeal the regulation. But the mentality that led to its existence is still a powerful force on the other side of the Atlantic.

“The EU is the most heavily regulated market in the world,” says Mr. Moffatt, who founded the London, Ont.-based business, and acts as its director of communications. “You’re going to want to get some assistance with it.”

Doing business overseas is fraught with challenges, and regulatory hurdles are only one of them.

Small businesses have to confront language obstacles, cultural differences, financial barriers and logistical hurdles as they try to get their products into a foreign market. Often, the knowledge to make these leaps doesn’t reside in-house.

How can they tap outside expertise and online resources to help make the leap?

Europe makes a tempting target market these days, especially as the U.S. economy continues to languish.

The United Kingdom, with its commonalities of language and culture, is a common first entry for Canadian companies expanding beyond North America; France offers similar advantages (if perhaps to a lesser extent).

And having broached the Euro zone, businesses can move into other, more challenging European markets.

But for all the commonalities that Western markets share, Europe poses its own challenges.

The full article can be found here.

For further reading click the link above.

From ECHA:

The graduate scheme has been established to respond to the high industry demand for REACH and CLP specialists and to assist young graduates to find employment as regulatory scientists and professionals in the field of chemical regulations.

To achieve its objectives, ECHA recruits chemists, toxicologists, ecotoxicologists, biocides and risk assessment experts as well as REACH and CLP regulatory affairs specialists. The new graduate scheme, which has been developed together with the European Commission, aims to improve the pool of suitable staff available for working at ECHA, as well as helping young graduates find employment as regulatory scientists and regulatory professionals in the field of chemicals.

An essential element of the graduate scheme is an information resource on ECHA’s website of academic courses that are relevant to working in this area of expertise. This information will enable graduates to plan their careers and source training and professional development possibilities as regulatory affairs professionals dealing with REACH and CLP. In addition, ECHA provides background material on the type of work that regulatory scientists at ECHA are engaged in and the qualifications and professional experience generally required to work in this field.

Furthermore, the existing ECHA traineeship scheme is being promoted to encourage uptake by graduates who wish to gain relevant experience with a view to a career in regulatory science. As a concrete, practical measure, the number of ECHA traineeship posts will be doubled with effect from 2012. Geert Dancet, Executive Director of the European Chemicals Agency said: “I am very pleased to be able to announce that the number of ECHA traineeship posts will be doubled from 2012 and we want to encourage graduates who wish to gain relevant experience and become trainees at ECHA to apply“.

The scheme is presented on 11 November 2011 at the ”Education and Skills for Business Competitiveness” conference in Rome organised by Confidustria, the Italian Industry Confederation and the European Commission. Antonio Tajani, Vice-President of the European Commission and responsible for Industry and Entrepreneurship, who announced the training scheme, together with Geert Dancet, said: “Amid times of crisis, the ECHA scheme is specifically developed to support a growing demand for specialists in the chemicals sector. We believe that this is the best way to support young professionals to build the experience and the knowledge they need to succeed in the job market.”

For more information click the link above.

From ECHA:

The Board of Appeal of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has today published its first two final decisions on appeals against decisions adopted by ECHA under the REACH Regulation .

In both cases, the appellants had paid the fee required for the registration of a substance, after the expiry of the deadlines set by the Agency. According to the REACH Regulation and the associated Fee Regulation, non-payment of the registration fee by the set deadline will result in the registration being rejected with any late fee not being refunded.

While both cases dealt with the late payment of the registration fee, the particular circumstances of the cases are different. The Board of Appeal decided in favour of the appellant in one case and in favour of ECHA in the other.

In case A-001-2010, the appellant sought the refund of the registration fee which had been paid after the set deadline. In this case, the Board of Appeal found in favour of the appellant and ordered ECHA to refund both the registration fee and the appeal fee. The Board of Appeal held that although the legislation sets out the consequences of failure to pay the registration fee on time, in this instance there were shortcomings in ECHA’s handling of the case. Taking into account all of the circumstances of this specific case, the Board of Appeal found that ECHA had not fulfilled all the requirements of good administration, particularly in regard to the requirement for clarity of the information it provided to the appellant.

In case A-004-2011, the appellant requested the Board of Appeal to annul the decision rejecting the registration. The appellant considered the rejection of its registration for late payment of the registration fee to be disproportionate. In this case, however, the Board of Appeal decided in favour of ECHA and confirmed that the Agency had acted correctly in rejecting the registration. In reaching its decision, the Board of Appeal found that there was nothing in the specific facts of the case to suggest that ECHA should not have applied the provisions of the above mentioned legislation. Consequently, ECHA had no alternative but to reject the substance registration dossier in question.

The full texts of the decisions are published on the Board of Appeal’s web page at: http://echa.europa.eu/appeals/app_decisions_en.asp.

For more information click the links above.

From Bureau Veritas Group:

During the 67th meeting of the German Central Experience Exchange Circle (ZEK), the PAH-substance list was expanded from 16 to 18 PAHs. The addition of these two PAHs to the substance list completes the German recommendation to restrict the eight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in consumer goods. Therefore, in the future there will be requirements for 18 PAHs to fulfill in order to receive the German GS mark.

During the manufacturing process of plastics, mineral oils are used that often contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) as contaminants. PAHs also can be part of carbon black which is used as a colouring and filling agent for plastics and rubber.

Apart from other requirements, there are currently requirements for 16 PAHs which have to be fulfilled for the GS mark to be granted. During the 67th meeting of the ZEK on September 28th and 29th, an expansion of the PAH-substance list suggested by the Commission for Technical Work Equipment and Consumer Goods (AtAV) was accepted, increasing the list of PAHs from 16 to 18 substances. The two new substances are Benzo[j]fluoranthene and Benzo[e]pyrene. These substances are, among others, named for regulation under REACH, but have not been regarded so far in the context of the GS mark.

After the official publishing of this expansion by the Central Department of the Federal States for Safety Features (ZLS), there will be a transition period of six months after which the two new substances will have to be taken into account during the granting of the GS mark.

For more information click the link above.

From OEHHA:

OEHHA has selected the chemicals below for the CIC’s review for possible listing under Proposition 65.  OEHHA is initiating the development of hazard identification materials on these chemicals.

Chemical Name                                                                  CAS#

C.I. Disperse Yellow                                             32832-40-8

Dibenzanthracenes and dibenz[a,c]anthracene             215-58-7

Hazard identification materials for the chemicals in the table above will be presented at future meetings of the CIC for Committee review for possible listing under Proposition 65.

By this notice, OEHHA is giving the public an opportunity to provide information relevant to the assessment of the evidence of carcinogenicity for the chemicals shown above.  Relevant information includes but is not limited to:

• cancer bioassays
• cancer epidemiological studies
• genotoxicity testing
• other pertinent data on:
  • pharmacokinetics,
  • biomarkers
  • effects on biochemical and physiological processes in humans.

Interested parties or members of the public wishing to provide such information should send it to the address given below.

The publication of this notice marks the start of a 60-day data call-in period, ending on Tuesday, January 10, 2012.  The information received during this period will be reviewed and considered by OEHHA as it prepares the cancer hazard identification materials on these chemicals.

We encourage you to submit relevant information on these chemicals in electronic form, rather than in paper form.  Submissions transmitted by e-mail should be addressed to P65Public.Comments@oehha.ca.gov.  Please include the chemical name in the subject line.  Submissions in paper form may be mailed, faxed, or delivered in person to the addresses below:

Mailing Address: Ms. Cynthia Oshita
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
P.O. Box 4010, MS-19B
Sacramento, California 95812-4010
Fax: (916) 323-8803
Street Address: 1001 I Street
Sacramento, California 95814

From: OEHHA

A meeting of the Proposition 651 Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) was held on October 12, 2011, at the California Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters Building in Sacramento, California.  The Committee considered the listing of Tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate and fluoride and its salts as known to the state cause cancer.  The Committee also provided OEHHA with its advice concerning the relative priority of 39 chemicals for possible hazard identification material preparation.  In addition, the Committee discussed procedures for public comment presentations, committee discussions and committee voting.

Go to the link below for access to the summary of this meeting, including slide presentations.

http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/public_meetings/cic101211synop.html

From: EPA

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today announced that SSH Management, LLC and 1500 Walnut Enterprises, LLC have signed a consent agreement with EPA resolving alleged violations of federal regulations for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in an office building located at 1500 Walnut St., Philadelphia, Pa.

The consent agreement resolves alleged Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulatory violations discovered when EPA inspectors conducted a compliance evaluation inspection at the building on May 6, 2009. The alleged violations include storage of combustible materials within each of two PCB transformer enclosures; failure to prepare and maintain annual visual inspection and maintenance history records for three PCB transformers; and failure to develop and maintain annual written document logs of the PCBs located onsite for 2006, 2007 and 2008.

PCBs, a probable human carcinogen, were commonly used as a nonflammable coolant for transformers and other electrical equipment until the 1970s, when Congress strictly limited the manufacture and use of this toxic substance.

Click on the links for more information.

From: Safety.BLR

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has submitted its revised hazard communication standard which would implement the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) October 25, 2011.

OMB has 90 days to approve the revised standard before the final rule is published in the Federal Register.

We will keep you informed of any regulatory changes that result from this proposed standard.

From: CPSC

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced today that Spin Master, Inc. of Los Angeles, California, and Spin Master Ltd. of Toronto, Canada, (“Spin Master”) have agreed to pay a civil penalty of $1,300,000.

The settlement resolves staff allegations that Spin Master knowingly failed to report the defect and hazard associated with Aqua Dots to CPSC immediately, as required by federal law. The settlement also resolves CPSC staff allegations that Spin Master knowingly imported and sold Aqua Dots, which were toxic and a banned hazardous substance, in violation of federal law.

CPSC staff alleges that by the middle of October 2007, Spin Master had received reports that children, and a dog, had become ill and received emergency medical treatment after ingesting Aqua Dots. On October 18, 2007, Spin Master learned that Aqua Dots contained 1,4-butylene glycol (TMG), which, upon ingestion, metabolizes to the controlled substance gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB). The following day, Spin Master learned that TMG is harmful if swallowed, and upon ingestion, targets the kidneys and central nervous system.

The recall announcement noted that children who swallow the beads can become comatose, develop respiratory depression, or have seizures.

Click on the link above for more information on this recall.