Nanospecific considerations Sample Clauses

Nanospecific considerations. The identification and naming of a substance under REACH may present challenges when it comes to nanomaterials (NMs). Such nanospecific considerations are illustrated in this sub- section. The currently available tools (e.g. guidance documents, models, protocols, decision trees), including those developed under NANoREG, for addressing the nanospecific considerations discussed in this sub-section are listed in the NANoREG Toolbox (Deliverable D1.12, see worksheet "3.1 REACH Substance ID"). REACH deals with substances in whatever size, shape or physical state they come. Substances at the nanoscale, i.e. NMs, are therefore covered by the definition of 'substance' under REACH and are subject to the same obligations as any substance, which means that sufficient information is required to be included in the dossier to enable safe use of the substance. REACH currently does not explicitly address NMs in the legal text (European Commission 2013), just like it does not explicitly refer to fibres, petroleum substances, enzymes, etc. In the second regulatory review on NMs, the European Commission concluded that REACH offers the best possible framework for the risk management of NMs, but also that within this framework, more specific requirements for NMs have proven necessary (European Commission 2012). As a consequence, a process of revision of the REACH Annexes is currently ongoing and explicit obligations both in the reporting and in the information requirements for NMs are foreseen in the near future (mid 2017). According to ECHA, the term 'nanoform' refers to a particular form of a substance that meets the criteria of the European Commission's Recommendation on the definition of 'nanomaterial' (2011/696/EU) (European Commission 2011), here subsequently referred to as the EC Definition (see section 2 for more information), as opposed to the 'bulk form(s)' of the same substance, i.e. (the) form(s) of the substance not meeting the criteria of the EC Definition. ECHA is preparing an appendix on recommendations for NMs applicable to the Guidance on Registration under REACH16. The aim is to define the term nanoform, the minimum criteria for distinguishing between different nanoforms, and the minimum set of parameters which must be reported to characterize a reported nanoform. The Guidance on Substance Identification (ECHA 2016a) does not include any specific advice for the identification and naming of NMs. However, nanotechnology is mentioned in the chapter concerning "...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Nanospecific considerations. Fulfilling the Standard Information Requirements under REACH may present challenges when it comes to NMs. Such nanospecific considerations are illustrated in this sub-section. The currently available tools (e.g. guidance documents, models, protocols, decision trees), including those developed under NANoREG, for addressing the nanospecific considerations discussed in this sub- section are listed in the NANoREG Toolbox (Deliverable D1.12, see worksheet "3.2 REACH Info Requirements"). Standard Information Requirements (Annexes VII-X of REACH) in principle apply equally to bulk forms (i.e. non-nanoforms) and nanoform(s) of a substance (see sub-section 3.1 for a definition of these terms). While preparing a registration dossier, the registrant has to make sure that the data provided are representative for all the specified form(s) of that substance (sub-section 3.1). The technical adequacy of the ECHA guidance for implementation of REACH for application to NMs was initially reviewed in the European "REACH Implementation Projects on Nanomaterials" (RIP-oNs) launched by the European Commission in 200919. It provided specific advice on the key aspects of implementation of REACH with regard to NMs concerning Standard Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment (CSA) (JRC 2011, Xxxxxx et al. 2011, Xxxxxx et al. 2011). Based on the outcomes of the RIP-oNs, in 2012 ECHA published a series of appendices to the guidance for implementation of REACH containing recommendations for NMs in relation to the Standard Information Requirements (ECHA 2012a, 2012b, 2012c)20. The main points addressed in those appendices are summarized in Tables 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 of this document. The recommendations published by ECHA partly implement the advice generated by the RIP-oNs (Xxxxxx et al. 2011). Specifically, the appendices implemented those points that were unanimously agreed and recommended to be changed in the review of the RIP-oNs. The appendices are currently under revision. ECHA has recently proposed updates that are under evaluation by the established expert groups21. 20 Please not that at the time this document is drafted ECHA guidance is being updated. More information at: xxxxx://xxxx.xxxxxx.xx/support/guidance/consultation-procedure/ongoing-reach 21 xxxx://xxxx.xxxxxx.xx/support/guidance/consultation-procedure/ongoing-reach
Sample 1
Nanospecific considerations. Using the rules for adaptations of Standard Information Requirements under REACH may present challenges when it comes to NMs. Such nanospecific considerations are illustrated in this sub- section. The currently available tools (e.g. guidance documents, models, protocols, decision trees), including those developed under NANoREG, for addressing the nanospecific considerations discussed in this sub-section are listed in the NANoREG Toolbox (Deliverable D1.12, see worksheet "3.3 REACH Adaptation rules").
Sample 1
Nanospecific considerations. The life cycles of many NMs are determined by their application within products. While the manufacturing stage of the life cycles are likely be in a controlled industrial setting, the use of nano-enabled products by consumers are decidedly less predictable and involve more variables. In particular, it is clear that the released fraction of NMs from nano-enabled products no longer represents the primary particles initially dispersed in the matrix, but rather, a variety of different fragments, agglomerates, and transformed products that may have significantly different physical and chemical properties than the original, as manufactured NMs (Xxxxxxx et al. 2015). NM aging and transformation processes therefore need to be accounted for. In the course of NANoREG, a selection was made of available Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that could be used to simulate, in controlled conditions, the release of nanoparticles from products and their subsequent transformation in the main compartments where exposure is likely to occur (i.e. indoor air, outdoor air, and water) (NANoREG Deliverable D3.3): • Nanoparticle release from textiles to the water compartment during washing cycles; • Nanoparticle release from polymers to the water compartment during accelerated aging; • Nanoparticle release to the indoor air and/or outdoor air during sanding processes; • Nanoparticle release to the indoor air and/or outdoor air as well as to the water compartment during environmental weathering/aging. One of the most important added values of the SOPs described within NANoREG Deliverable D3.3 was to implement previously developed normalized ISO tests. It means that the described tests were accepted as tests that reproduce at best the aging or weathering of materials. Qualitative and quantitative estimation of NM exposure is very complex, as these materials have very low mass, can be highly dynamic in terms of particle aggregation/agglomeration or reactivity and co-exist with ambient particles of the same size range. There are currently no agreed, standardized and validated methods for measuring personal exposure (i.e. measurements in the breathing zone) to NMs. Furthermore, there are currently no validated models providing quantitative estimates of human (worker or consumer) or environmental exposure. The existing Tier 1 and higher Tier exposure models described in ECHA guidance are designed and evaluated for use with chemicals and should not be applied to obtain quantitative estima...
Sample 1

Related to Nanospecific considerations

  • RISK CONSIDERATION There are no significant risks associated with the recommendations contained within this report. This application may be considered under existing MPS policies. Community Council has the discretion to make decisions that are consistent with the MPS, and such decisions may be appealed to the N.S. Utility and Review Board. Information concerning risks and other implications of adopting the proposed development agreement are contained within the Discussion section of this report. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS No environmental implications are identified.

  • General Considerations a. All reports, drawings, designs, specifications, notebooks, computations, details, and calculation documents prepared by Vendor and presented to the Board pursuant to this Agreement are and remain the property of the Board as instruments of service.

  • Additional Considerations For each mediation or arbitration:

  • Ethical Considerations The study will be conducted in accordance with ethical principles founded in the Declaration of Helsinki. The Institutional Review Board (IRB)/Independent Ethics Committee (IEC) will review all appropriate study documentation in order to safeguard the rights, safety and well-being of the subjects. The study can only be conducted at study sites where IRB/IEC approval has been obtained. The protocol, informed consent form, Investigator’s Brochure, advertisements (if applicable), and all other forms of information given to subjects will be provided to the IRB/IEC by the Investigator. In addition, reports on the progress of the study will be submitted to the IRB/IEC by the Investigator at the appropriate intervals.

  • Other Considerations A. Changes to an Approved Scope of Work: The Recipient shall notify FEMA and shall require a sub-recipient to notify it immediately when a sub-recipient proposes changes to an approved scope of work for an Undertaking.

  • Tax Considerations The Company has advised Recipient to seek Recipient’s own tax and financial advice with regard to the federal and state tax considerations resulting from Recipient’s receipt of the Award and Recipient’s receipt of the Shares upon Settlement of the vested portion of the Award. Recipient understands that the Company, to the extent required by law, will report to appropriate taxing authorities the payment to Recipient of compensation income upon the Settlement of RSUs under the Award and Recipient shall be solely responsible for the payment of all federal and state taxes resulting from such Settlement.

  • Environmental Considerations A. Company, its officers, agents, servants, employees, invitees, independent contractors, successors, and assigns will not discharge or spill any Hazardous Substance, as defined herein, into any component of the storm drainage system or onto any paved or unpaved area within the boundaries of the Premises. In addition, Company will not discharge or spill any Hazardous Substance into any component of the sanitary sewer system without first neutralizing or treating same as required by applicable anti-pollution laws or ordinances, in a manner satisfactory to Authority and other public bodies, federal, state, or local, having jurisdiction over or responsibility for the prevention of pollution of canals, streams, rivers, and other bodies of water. Company’s discharge, spill or introduction of any Hazardous Substance onto the Premises or into any component of Authority’s sanitary or storm drainage systems will, if not remedied by Company with all due dispatch, at the sole discretion of Authority, be deemed a default and cause for termination of this Agreement by Authority, subject to notice and cure. Such termination will not relieve Company of or from liability for such discharge or spill.

  • Financial Considerations 5.1 In the event aggregate funding provided to SCDDO from county, state and/or federal sources is reduced or in any way becomes insufficient to fund this Agreement, the obligations of both SCDDO and the CSP must thereupon be: (1) reduced on a pro rata basis, or (2) renegotiated or terminated, provided that any termination of this Agreement must be without prejudice to any obligations or liabilities of the parties accrued prior to the termination.

  • Special Considerations Special considerations in determining allowability of compensation will be given to any change in a non-Federal entity's compensation policy resulting in a substantial increase in its employees' level of compensation (particularly when the change was concurrent with an increase in the ratio of Federal awards to other activities) or any change in the treatment of allowability of specific types of compensation due to changes in Federal policy.

  • PRIORITY HIRING CONSIDERATIONS If this Contract includes services in excess of $200,000, the Contractor shall give priority consideration in filling vacancies in positions funded by the Contract to qualified recipients of aid under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 11200 in accordance with Pub. Contract Code §10353.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.