WERCS Studio Virtual Events 2023

UL Solutions welcomes our valued WERCS Studio customers to the on-demand version of the 2023 Virtual User Group.

During these valuable sessions, the WERCS Studio team will be taking you through key software and regulatory topics to help you maximize your software investment and manage your regulatory compliance obligations.

Topics included

Questions and Answers

I know this presentation was on GHS updates for the Asia Pacific region but what is happening in the U.S.?
OSHA sent the proposed rule to OMB on October 11, 2023. The expectation is that the final rule will be released in January 2024 but subject to change. Stay tuned!

You didn’t mention anything about GHS Updates for India? What’s going on there? 
There was nothing concrete to report. India is in its at least 5th draft of Chemical Management Regulations and content has changed dramatically between drafts. Word on the street is second half of 2024 but we have heard target dates before.

You mentioned the option of having a QR code on the label of the chemical product. Would that eliminate the need of providing the physical Safety Data Sheet?  
The physical SDS would still be required since there is a possibility of lack of internet access or an individual not having a phone to be able to get access to the SDS.

What testing will be needed to identify endocrine disruptors?  
The CLP Regulation does not set information requirements or require testing of substances and mixtures for classification purposes. Under CLP, no further studies can be requested. We do expect more information on your question based on the revised CLP guidance. The current draft document refers also to the OECD ‘Guidance document on standardized test guidelines for evaluating chemicals for endocrine disruption’, OECD GD 150, which provides guidance on the interpretation of effects measured in relevant OECD test guidelines and other standardized test methods.

Does the PFAS reporting rule require companies to conduct testing?
No, but, you must use all information known to or reasonably ascertainable by you to determine if you manufactured or imported a PFAS. For example, if you imported a type of product known to sometimes contain PFAS, this could include reviewing purchase records, Safety Data Sheets or product data sheets or contacting your supplier.

Any insight into how PFAS will be measured or in scope for purposes of regulation by the U.S. states?
Many of the states have included verbiage to address 'intentionally added' PFAS. Where that is the case, intentionally added is generally also defined. Typically, this equates to addition of a PFAS chemical to a material or product to achieve a desired technical effect. However, some states like California have also set guidelines for the concentration of PFAS. For example, the laws are targeted at PFAS intentionally added OR present in a product or product component at or above 100 ppm, measured by total organic fluorine.

Is there any indication of what products may be in scope of potential future PFAS regulation in Canada or the U.S.? 
The draft state of PFAS report did not provide much indication as to which categories could be subject to future action. Largely, the upcoming survey will likely be used to highlight where use is most prevalent and will be reviewed to determine the best next steps. Much of the current state action has revolved around the key categories covered earlier in the presentation, but there are some categories that only one or two states have passed or proposed bills to address. Some examples of these are architectural coatings, artificial turf, dental floss, and anti-fogging sprays or wipes. Washington State just announced a cycle 1.5 to address PFAS further under their Safer Products Program, and one standout category noticed was hard surface sealants.

Can you please clarify the exemption for chemicals in imported articles?  
First of all chemical substances in imported articles are not exempt under the TSCA Asbestos reporting rule or the PFAS reporting rule.  Under the CDR rule, a chemical substance imported solely as part of an article is exempt, provided that the intended use of the article will not result in the release of the substance.  For example, a pen is considered to be an article.  But, the ink in the pen isn’t considered to be part of the article because it’s intended to be released when the pen is used.  Therefore, the chemicals in the ink are subject to reporting.

Could you please clarify whether obtaining a lithium battery, GB 31241 China Compulsory Certification (CCC), will allow one to obtain a Certification for Safe Transport of Chemical Goods (CSTCG) also?
No, while the CCC is closely aligned with the UN 38.3 test requirements, to obtain a Certification for Safe Transport of Chemical Goods (CSTCG) a 1.2 m drop and 3 m stacking test, in addition to the UN 38.3 tests are required. Obtaining CCC Certification only is not sufficient and will not allow one to obtain a CSTCG in China, additional testing would be required.

Do the changes presented in the U.N. Model 23rd Edition automatically get incorporated into the various, global transport regulations? 
No, each transport regulation has a team of experts that reviews the changes presented in the U.N. Model regulation and determines whether to adopt and implement any of the U.N. Model changes in their respective transport regulations. This includes adapting the U.N. Model regulations, as needed, to apply to the modes that they cover.