Checklists for Applicants submitting dossiers on Cosmetic Ingredients to be evaluated by the SCCS

Checklists for Applicants submitting dossiers on Cosmetic Ingredients to be evaluated by the SCCSThe SCCS adopted these Checklists on 07 March 2017Checklists for Applicants submitting dossiers on Cosmetic Ingredients to be evaluated by the SCCSThe SCCS adopted these Checklists on 07 March 201

Feed-in tariffs for promotion of energy storage technologies

Faster market integration of new energy technologies can be achieved by use of proper support mechanisms that will create favourable market conditions for such technologies. The best examples of support mechanisms presented in the last two decades have been the various schemes for the promotion of renewable energy sources (RES). In the EU, the most successful supporting schemes are feed-in tariffs which have significantly increased utilisation of renewable energy sources in Germany, Spain, Portugal, Denmark and many other EU countries. Despite the successful feed-in tariffs for RES promotion, in many cases RES penetration is limited by power system requirements linked to the intermittency of RES sources and technical capabilities of grids. These problems can be solved by implementation of energy storage technologies like reversible or pumped hydro, hydrogen, batteries or any other technology that can be used for balancing or dump load. In this paper, feed-in tariffs for various energy storage technologies are discussed along with a proposal for their application in more appropriate regions. After successful application on islands and outermost regions, energy storage tariffs should be also applied in mainland power systems. Increased use of energy storage could optimise existing assets on the market.Feed-in tariffs Energy storage Renewable energy sources

Scientific opinion on HAA299 (nano)– SCCS/1634/21

From Elsevier via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: accepted 2023-02-15, issued 2023-03-01Article version: AMPublication status: AcceptedOpinion to be cited as: SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety), Opinion on HAA299 (nano), preliminary opinion July 22, 2021, final opinion 26–27 October 2021, SCCS/1634/2021. HAA299 is a UV filter active intended to be used in sunscreen products as skin protectant against UVA-1 rays. Its chemical name is ‘2-(4-(2-(4-Diethylamino-2 hydroxy-benzoyl)-benzoyl)-piperazine-1-carbonyl)-phenyl)-(4-diethylamino-2-hydroxyphenyl)-methanone’ and INCI name ‘Bis-(Diethylaminohydroxybenzoyl Benzoyl) Piperazine’ (CAS 919803-06-8). This product was designed and developed to deliver to the consumer stronger UV protection on skin and is most effective as a UV filter when it is milled to a smaller particle size, a process we refer to as micronization. Currently HAA299 normal form and nano form is not regulated under the Cosmetic Regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009. In 2009, Commission' services received a dossier from industry to support the safe use of HAA299 (micronised and non-micronised) in cosmetic products, which was further substantiated with additional information in 2012. In its corresponding opinion (SCCS/1533/14), the SCCS concluded that “the use of non-nano HAA299 (micronised or non-micronised, with median particle size distribution around 134 nm or larger, as measured by FOQELS) at a concentration up to 10% as an UV-filter in cosmetic products, does not pose a risk of systemic toxicity in humans”. In addition, SCCS stated that “[the Opinion] … covers the safety evaluation of HAA299 in non-nano form. The opinion does not cover the safety evaluation of HAA299 which is composed of nano particles' and highlighted that ‘[the Opinion] … does not apply to inhalation exposure of HAA299 since no information on chronic or sub-chronic toxicity after inhalation is provided”. With the current submission, received in September 2020, and in view of the previous SCCS opinion (SCCS/1533/14) on the normal form of HAA299, the applicant requests to assess the safety of HAA299 (nano) intended to be used as UV-filter up to a maximum concentration of 10%

Scientific opinion on HAA299 (nano)- SCCS/1634/21.

From Elsevier via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: accepted 2023-02-15, issued 2023-03-01Article version: AMPublication status: AcceptedOpinion to be cited as: SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety), Opinion on HAA299 (nano), preliminary opinion July 22, 2021, final opinion 26–27 October 2021, SCCS/1634/2021. HAA299 is a UV filter active intended to be used in sunscreen products as skin protectant against UVA-1 rays. Its chemical name is ‘2-(4-(2-(4-Diethylamino-2 hydroxy-benzoyl)-benzoyl)-piperazine-1-carbonyl)-phenyl)-(4-diethylamino-2-hydroxyphenyl)-methanone’ and INCI name ‘Bis-(Diethylaminohydroxybenzoyl Benzoyl) Piperazine’ (CAS 919803-06-8). This product was designed and developed to deliver to the consumer stronger UV protection on skin and is most effective as a UV filter when it is milled to a smaller particle size, a process we refer to as micronization. Currently HAA299 normal form and nano form is not regulated under the Cosmetic Regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009. In 2009, Commission' services received a dossier from industry to support the safe use of HAA299 (micronised and non-micronised) in cosmetic products, which was further substantiated with additional information in 2012. In its corresponding opinion (SCCS/1533/14), the SCCS concluded that “the use of non-nano HAA299 (micronised or non-micronised, with median particle size distribution around 134 nm or larger, as measured by FOQELS) at a concentration up to 10% as an UV-filter in cosmetic products, does not pose a risk of systemic toxicity in humans”. In addition, SCCS stated that “[the Opinion] … covers the safety evaluation of HAA299 in non-nano form. The opinion does not cover the safety evaluation of HAA299 which is composed of nano particles' and highlighted that ‘[the Opinion] … does not apply to inhalation exposure of HAA299 since no information on chronic or sub-chronic toxicity after inhalation is provided”. With the current submission, received in September 2020, and in view of the previous SCCS opinion (SCCS/1533/14) on the normal form of HAA299, the applicant requests to assess the safety of HAA299 (nano) intended to be used as UV-filter up to a maximum concentration of 10%

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE on the safety of nanomaterials in cosmetics (SCCS) - SCCS/1618/2020 – Final Advice - Corrigendum of 8 March 2021

International audienceThe SCCS adopted this Advice by written procedure on 8 January 2021 - Corrigendum of 8 March 2021 The SCCS concludes the following:1. The SCCS is requested to determine the nanomaterials, as published in the recent catalogue of nanomaterials of 2019, for which specific concerns can be identified and justified in order to establish a priority list of nanomaterials for risk assessment (Article 16(4) Reg.1223/2009). More specifically, the SCCS is requested to provide a description of the specific concerns that have been identified for the nanomaterials mentioned above. This process should be based on the currently available scientific literature and SCCS’ expert judgement.*Through a review of the available information and expert judgment, the SCCS has identified certain aspects of nanomaterials that constitute a basis for concern over safety to consumers’ health when used in cosmetic products. These include:• Physicochemical aspects relating to: very small dimensions of the constituent particles; solubility/persistence; chemical nature and toxicity of the nanomaterial; physical/morphological features of the constituent particles; surface chemistry and surface characteristics (surface modifications/coatings);• Exposure aspects relating to: the frequency and the amounts used, whether the number/type of consumer product(s) used is relatively high; and whether there is a potential for systemic exposure of the consumer to nanoparticles and potential accumulation in the body;• Other aspects relating to: novel properties, activity or function, and specific concern arising from the type of application.A detailed account of these aspects has been presented in this Advice. Also, the nanomaterials listed in the EC catalogue of nanomaterials of 2019 have been tabulated in an order of priority according to risk potential in Annex 1 of this Advice.2. For the nanomaterials with inconclusive SCCS opinions, such as [Colloidal Silver (nano) (SCCS/1596/18), Styrene/Acrylates copolymer (nano) + Sodium styrene/Acrylates copolymer (nano) (SCCS/1595/18) and Silica, Hydrated Silica, and Silica Surface Modified with Alkyl Silylates (nano form) (SCCS/1545/15)], the SCCS is requested to assess if a potential risk can be identified according to Article 16(6) Reg. 1223/2009. Such assessment, regardless of the data previously submitted by the respective applicants, should be based on the available scientific literature and SCCS’ expert judgement (i.e. systemic or local availability; harmful effects specifically related to nano-form; surface catalysed reactions in nano-form, absorption (or potential absorption) from dermal and inhalation routes, potential of nano-form to deliver ionic forms, etc.).*The SCCS has reviewed previous inconclusive opinions on three nanomaterials (SCCS/1596/18; SCCS/1595/18 and SCCS/1545/15), in conjunction with any further relevant information available in published literature to identify whether there is a scientific basis for concern over their safety to consumers’ health when used in cosmetic products. The SCCS has identified certain aspects relating to each of the nanomaterials that raise a safety concern. These have been detailed in three separate annexes (2, 3 and 4) to this Advice