Agenda
-
Registration and coffee
-
Welcome and introduction by the moderator
-
KEYNOTE: Recent developments in EU chemicals legislation from a high-level perspective
- REACH/CLP revision
- REFIT
- New EU Parliament
Paul Krajnik
Deputy Director Chemicals and Biocides, Ministry for Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology, Austria - Session 1: Overviews
-
EU Commission overview
- Extension of the review program
- New (draft) Delegated Regulation on the work program for the systematic examination of all existing active substances
- Amendments to the regulations on changes (Regulation 354/2013), same biocidal products (Regulation 414/2013) and renewals under mutual recognition (Regulation 492/2014)
- Approach to setting of maximum residue levels for biocides
- Grants to member states for the implementation of the BPR
-
ECHA overview
- Recent developments
- Future challenges
-
Enforcement projects of the ECHA Forum BPR subgroup
- Labels of biocidal products
- Insight into related BEF-2 project results from 2022
- Focus on labels in the BEF-3 project in 2025
- Routine inspection focus on forbidden label claims
Eugen Anwander
Senior Scientific Officer, Institute for Environment and Food Safety, Vorarlberg State Service, Austria & Vice-chair of Echa BPR Enforcement Forum, Finland -
Refreshment break
-
Member state overview
- Capacity planning
- Structure and best practice at the BAuA: Expectations, experiences and challenges
Jana-Alina Zur
Regulatory Officer, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA), Federal Office for Chemicals (BfC) -
Industry overview
- The 3rd extension of the review program
- New review regulation replacing Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014
- Pros and cons, and expected practical impact
-
Q&A session
-
Lunch and networking
- Session 2: Current state of science for testing under the BPR
-
How the BPR will be potentially affected by the revision of PBT and vPvB guidance
- Background PBT/vPvB substances under REACH
- Implications for biocides
- Case study examples
- Special focus on NAMs and ED
-
Regulatory acceptance of NAMs, what is already acceptable and what should be developed to make sure the NAMs will be accepted
- Challenges of using NAMs for risk assessment for biocidal products
- Read across as a tool for endocrine disrupter assessment for biocidal substances
- Examples and recommendations
-
Regulatory acceptance of NAMs, what is already acceptable and what should be developed to make sure the NAMs will be accepted
- NAMs with regulatory acceptance in biocides assessments so far
- PARC and other initiatives: are low hanging fruit to be expected?
- Requirements to speed up the transformation
Vera Ritz
Head of Unit Steering and Overall Assessment Biocides, Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) -
Satisfying data requirements under the BPR using Non-Animal Methods (NAMs)
- Validated and regulatory accepted NAMs
- Moving forward: How to assess more complex endpoints
- Troubleshooting and sharing successful experiences
-
Status quo of acceptance and use of NAMs in European regulatory risk assessment
- Barriers and drivers of acceptance and use
- Overarching views of the public and risk assessors of current practices in regulatory toxicology
-
Refreshment break
-
Q&A and panel discussion: How to achieve greater regulatory acceptance of NAMs for biocides
- Session 3: Important efficacy updates
-
PT6 efficacy for yeast and fungi
- Normative view
- PT6 efficacy study design
- Typical troubleshooting
- Cases studies
-
Q&A session
-
Networking drinks reception
-
Close of day one
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
