Member States Reporting under REACH art. 117 / CLP...

1

Case Id: 3aadf3db-847b-4dc9-bfdc-425e58874222Date: 01/06/2015 10:04:46

Member States Reporting under REACH art. 117 / CLPart.46

Fields marked with * are mandatory.

General Information

Please note that depending on what your answers are throughout the questionnaire, hiddenquestions may show up, so please disregard the numbering in case it does not follow a logicorder.

A glossary is available in the section 'background document'.

*1.Which Member State are you reporting for?

Austria

*2. Primary contact person's name

Wimmer Martin

*3. Please provide an email address for the primary contact person

[email protected]

Theme 1 - Information on the Competent Authority

*

*

*

2

4. Please explain how Competent Authorities are organised for the operation of REACH in yourcountry? (Please note that this Section does not include information on enforcement authoritiesthat will be covered under Theme 9 on enforcement)

Based on the Chemicals Law (Chemikaliengesetz 1996, FLG No 53/1997 last

amendment by FLG No I 14/2015), the BMLFUW (Bundesministerium für Land-

und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft) is the competent

authority for REACH and CLP. The Division V/5 (Chemicals Policy and

Biocides) is responsible for the administrative management of this

responsibility. This includes regular meetings with other ministerial

bodies, enforcement bodies, institutions, industry representatives and

stakeholders which are concerned with chemical´s management (Austrian

REACH platform) to inform about recent developments, discuss important

issues and identify the major concerns.

In its management obligations the Division V/5 is supported by the

Umweltbundesamt GmbH as mandated institution.

*5. How many Competent Authorities are responsible for REACH?

A description of each Competent Authority will be asked in the following sections. Similar series of questions

corresponding to the number of Competent Authorities you enter will appear below.

1

One / First Competent Authority Responsible for REACH

*6. What is the name of the Competent Authority?

BMLFUW ((Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und

Wasserwirtschaft)

*7. What is the address of the Competent Authority?

Stubenring 1, A-1010 Wien AT (BMLFUW), Stubenbastei 5, A-1010 Wien

(Division V/5) Wien, AT

*8. What is the email address of the Competent Authority?

[email protected]

*9. What is the telephone number of the Competent Authority?

0043-1-51522-0

*

*

*

*

*

3

*10. What part of REACH does this part of the Competent Authority deal with?Please choose one or more answers.

AllEvaluationRisk AssessmentHelpdeskAuthorisationRestrictionRegistrationOther

*11. From what part of Government does this part of the Competent Authority have authorityfrom?Please choose one or more answers.

EnvironmentOccupational Health and SafetyPublic HealthConsumer ProtectionEconomy/IndustryOther

*12. Please specify the number of staff of the Competent Authority working on the implementationof REACH:

20

Note: this includes also the staff of the Umweltbundesamt GmbH

*

*

*

4

*13. Do you have specialised staff in the following categories? Please quantify these skills in FTE(Full Time Equivalent).

For a definition of Full Time Equivalent, please refer to the glossary.

Number of FTE

Toxicologist 3,8

Ecotoxicologist 2,4Chemist 2,0

Exposure Assessor 1,4Risk Assessor 0,8

Risk manager 2,8

Economist 1

IT 1,6

Communication 1,2

Other 2,0

*14. Is the level of expertise of the Competent Authority adequate to deal with all requirementsunder REACH?

Yes

*15. Are the staff of the REACH Competent Authority involved in other chemical legislation?

YesNo

*

*

*

5

*16. What other chemical legislation are the staff of the REACH Competent Authority involved in?

Please choose one or more answers.

PIC RegulationFood legislationWorkers Protection legislationCosmeticsMedical devicesBiocidesCLPPesticidesPOPsOther

*If Other, please list the different legislations here:

It should be noted here that the figures for FTE mentioned under

question 13 refer to the tasks relating to REACH and CLP. Ressources for

the other tasks dealt with by the BMLFUW are not included in the figures

under question 13

*17. Are there any other institutions (agency, institute, regional authorities) that the CompetentAuthority works with in relation to REACH issues?

YesNo

*If Yes, please list the other institutions that the Competent Authority works with:

The BMLFUW cooperates with ministries responsible for occupational

health and consumer protection (BMASK), health (BMG), economy (BMWFW)

and different institutions which are related to these tasks. The

Umweltbundesamt GmbH supports the BMLFUW as mandated institution for

REACH.

*18. Does the Competent Authority outsource any of its work?

YesNo

*

*

*

*

*

6

*If yes, please provide details on who the Competent Authority outsources parts of its work to:

Currently one Austrian expert in the RAC works on the basis of a

contract with the BMLFUW.

*And on what type of expertise is outsourced:

Toxicology, Risk Assessment, Exposure, is specially with respect to

occupational health.

*19. Does the Competent Authority have appropriate financial resources?

1 = Very low (not appropriate at all); 2 = Low (of some relevance but not of any great significance); 3 = Medium

(reasonably appropriate); 4 = High (highly appropriate); 5 = Very high (completely appropriate)

12345

*20. Does the Competent Authority have appropriate technical resources (understood in terms ofexpertise, skills and competences of the staff)?

12345

*21. Does the Competent Authority have appropriate human resources (understood in terms ofnumber of staff)?

12345

*

*

*

*

*

7

22. Space is available below to provide further comments on the resourcing of the CompetentAuthority.

Theme 2: Information on cooperation and communication with otherMember States, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and theCommission

*23. How could the communication and collaboration for REACH between Member States beimproved?

1800 character(s) maximum

In general we feel that the cooperation between MS works quite well.

*24. How could the collaboration with other agencies in your country be improved?


In general we feel that the cooperation with other agencies works quite

well.

*25. How could the communication and collaboration with ECHA be improved?


In general we feel that the cooperation with ECHA works quite well.

Given the considerable costs and time requirements for missions we feel

that some additional meetings could be managed via telephone

conferences.

*

*

*

8

*26. How could the exchange of information and dialogue between Member States and theCommission be improved?


In general we feel that the cooperation with the Commission works quite

well.

Theme 3: Operation of the national helpdesk

*27. Please provide the name of the organisation(s) responsible for operating the Helpdesk(s) forREACH.

Umweltbundesamt GmbH (as institution mandated by the Austrian CA

*28. What is (are) the address(es) of the Helpdesk(s)?

Spittelauer Lände 5, A-1090 Wien, AT

*29. What is (are) the web page address(es) of the Helpdesk(s)?

www.reachhelpdesk.at

*

*

*

*

9

*30. What is (are) the email address(es) of the Helpdesk(s)?

[email protected]

*31. What is (are) the telephone number(s) of the Helpdesk(s)?

0043 (0)1 3100 472

*32. What is the institutional structure of the Helpdesk(s)?

Separate independent entity(ies)Part of Competent AuthorityPart of business association/chamber of commerceOther

*33. Please quantify these skills in FTE (Full Time Equivalent).

Number of FTE

Toxicologist 0,05

Ecotoxicologist 0,05

Chemist 0,6

Exposure Assessor 0,025

Risk Assessor 0,025

Risk manager 0

Economist 0,05

IT 0

Communication 0

Other 0

*

*

*

*

10

*34. Is the level of expertise adequate to respond to all enquiries?

YesNo

*35. For which topics does the national helpdesk feel it necessary to refer the enquirer to theECHA helpdesk?

REACH-IT related topics – e.g. management of user account

*36. What are the services offered by the Helpdesk?


WebsiteNewsletterAdvice servicesTrainingsMediation / conflict resolutionOther

*37. In which language(s) are these services accessible?

German

*38. Is the same Helpdesk used to provide help to Industry on CLP?

YesNo

*39. Does the Helpdesk receive any non-governmental support?

YesNo

*

*

*

*

*

*

11

*40. Please describe the Helpdesk quality assurance mechanisms:

All written answers sent to enquirers are double-checked by at least 2

experts. Information for the website is also checked by 2 experts. The

check also includes verification if the wording is as simple as possible

and understandable for less experienced users.

*41. Is ISO9000 norm in place?

YesNo

42. How many enquiries does the Helpdesk receive per year?

1 - 100 101 - 1000 > 1000

*2010

*2011

*2012

*2013

*2014

*43. How are the majority of enquiries received?


EmailPhoneFaxLetterOtherNo information

*44. Do you provide specific advice to SME's?

YesNo

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

12

%3

%2

%0

%14

%0

If yes, please specify how this advice is customized for the needs of SMEs.

It can be generally assumed that most of the enquirers are SMEs (even

though this cannot be verified). Thus it is the aim of the Helpdesk to

provide information (answers/website) as “SME-friendly” as possible. In

few cases also face to face meetings have taken place.

*45. What is the company size of enquirers? (please specify the percentage of the total each ofthem represent)

If no information is available for a specific type of company, please indicate N/A in the corresponding box.

%

Large enterprises N/A

Medium enterprises N/A

Small enterprises N/A

Micro enterprises N/A

Other N/A

*46. For each type of enquiry received, please provide the percentage of the total number ofenquiries during the reporting period:Pre-registration

Please insert a figure. The individual percentages should add up 100% altogether.

*Registration

*Evaluation

*Authorisation

*Restriction

*

*

*

*

*

*

13

%2

%2

%3

%1

%7

%8

%0

%1

%1

%1

*Testing (Information requirement/registration)

*Data sharing

*Enforcement

*CSR preparation

*CLP Classification

*CLP Labelling

*CLP Packaging

*CLP Classification and labelling inventory

*SIEFs

*REACH-IT

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

14

%15

%0

%8

%22

%8

%2

%14

%1

*IUCLID5

*Downstream user obligations

*Only representative obligations

*Obligations regarding articles

*Safety Data Sheets

*SVHC

*Other

*47. Are enquiries received mostly:

'Straight-forward' is understood as those enquiries that can be answered without performing any prior research.

'Complex' is understood as those enquiries that require a minimum level of research before been answered or that

demand exhaustive elaboration.

ComplexStraightforwardNo information

*48. What proportion of enquiries received are deemed to be: 1) straight forward

Please provide an approximate estimation as an average per year. The individual percentages should add up 100%

altogether.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

15

%85

*2) complex

49. How long, on average, does it take to respond to the following types of questions?

4hours

1day

3days

1week

2weeks

> 2weeks

Noinfo

*Straight forwardquestions

*Complex questions

*50. Are any types of enquiry outsourced?

YesNo

*52. Does the Helpdesk seek feedback on its performance?

YesNo

*If yes please specify by whom and what the result was:

The helpdesk reports every three months to the CA who can gives his

feedback for improving: Moreover in case concerns with the Helpdesk

performance are raised in the Austrian REACH platform measures will be

taken for improvement

*53. Does the Helpdesk review its performance and consider ways to improve its effectiveness?

YesNo

*If yes, what were the measures taken to improve its effectiveness?

See also response to question 52. One measure concerned e.g. the

redesign of the Website provided by the REACh Helpdesk.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

16

54. How could the cooperation between Helpdesks Helpnet be improved?under


ECHA offers sufficient tools and support (Helpex, FAQ procedure,

meetings etc.) for the cooperation of the Helpdesks. It is for the

individual Helpdesk experts to decide to which extent they need a

co-operation, considering also the available resources. It is noted that

Helpdesk very much benefit from the cooperation of the Helpdesks and the

resulting achievements even if they are sometimes not themselves

involved in the discussion process.

55. How could the cooperation between Helpdesk Helpnet be improved?outside


It is not quite clear what the co-operation “outside HelpNet” actually

means. In our view, the co-operation of Helpdesks is well facilitated by

HelpNet and thus we see no need for pushing for more cooperation

“outside” HelpNet.

*56. How frequently do you use HelpEx?

DailyWeeklyMonthlyLess frequently

Theme 4: Awareness raising activities

*57. Has the Member State carried out any specific awareness raising activities?

YesNo

*

*

17

*58. What types of activities have been carried out?


Television spotsArticles in NewspapersRadio spotsSpeaking eventsInformation seminarTelephone surveysLeaflets and newslettersArticles in industry magazinesWebsite / Social MediaOther

*If other, please list the activities that have been carried out:

The AT CA co-operates with a number of institutions with respect to

awareness raising. With respect to awareness raising of companies it is

stressed that the Austrian Economic Chamber (WKO, FCIO) is very

pro-active in informing and supporting companies in fulfilling their

tasks under REACH and CLP. Under Austrian law companies are obliged to

become members of the WKO. This includes also all SMEs. Taking advantage

of this fact, SMEs could be efficiently informed via joined campaigns

(BMFLUW, BMWFW, WKO, FCIO). Other institutions with whom the CA AT

co-operated were: BMASK (on occupational health issues), Verein für

Konsumentenschutz (consumers), Umweltberatung (consumers, environmental

protection)

*59. Who is the target audience for your awareness raising activities?


Consumers directlyConsumers indirectly through multipliers (media, associations etc)SME in downstream sectorsAll companies in downstream sectorsSMEs in chemicals sectorAll companies in chemicals sectorOther

*If 'Other', please specify:

schools and chemistry teachers

*

*

*

*

18

60. Please describe how the information was adapted for the specific target audience:

All SMEs in downstream and the chemical sector were reached by joined

information campaigns of the BMLFUW, BMWFW and WKO via the submission of

leaflets to the members of WKO. A joined project with the Verein für

Konsumentenschutz (VKI) was targeted to the obligation of companies to

report on SVHCs in articles. Results were reported in workshops,

seminars and newspaper articles.

61. How effective was each type of activity?



If you have not ticked an activity in question 59, please state N/A.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

*Television spots

*Articles in Newspaper

*Radio spots

*Speaking events

*Information seminar

*Telephone surveys

*Leaflets and newsletters

*Articles in industry magazines

*Websites / social media

*Other

*62. Do you measure the effectiveness of the activities?

YesNo

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

19

*64. Do you have a REACH webpage/website?

YesNo

65. Do you have a single webpage for REACH or multiple pages?

Single webpageMultiple webpages

66. How frequently is the REACH webpage visited (per month)?

1-100101-500501-50005001+No information

Theme 5: Information on the promotion of the development,evaluation and use of alternative test methods

*67. Does the Member State contribute to EU and/or OECD work on the development andvalidation of alternative test methods by participating in relevant committees?

YesNo

*68. What has been the overall public funding on research and development of alternative testingin your Member States each year?

Euros 0-10,000Euros 10,001-100,000Euros 100,001-1,000,000More than Euros 1, 000, 000No information

*

*

*

20

69. Please mention other relevant activities carried out on information on the Promotion of theDevelopment, Evaluation and Use of Alternative Test Methods:

In Austria, there are numerous different (research) activities on

developing and promoting alternative test methods, but the AT CA does

not, at present, have a full picture. We mention at least one

Life+-project in which an expert of the Umweltbundesamt GmbH is actively

involved: CALEIDOS: Chemical assessment according to legislation

enhancing the in silico documentation and safe use

(http://www.caleidos-life.eu/).

Theme 6: Information on participation in REACH Commission andECHA expert groups / committees (Forum, REACH Committee,MSC, RAC, SEAC, CARACAL, RCN, Helpnet)

*70. How effective is the work of the FORUM Committee?



12345

71. Please specify if needed:


Forum Members and Invited Experts need to be more freed from work load

and burdens in Forum (Forum Working Groups) in order to be able to focus

more on the required steering Forum’s role of coordination. Forum needs

to be more freed from pure technical issues of coordination.

72. How could the effectiveness be improved?


For a good operation of Forum access to outsourced resources

(consultants) for certain expert tasks not performed by the ECHA Forum

Secretariat needs to become available. It is not the role of the MSs to

provide resources for such tasks of the Forum (e.g. gathering,

consolidating and analysing data from inspection campaigns, preparing

drafts for a reporting with diagrams, tables, text).

*

21

*73. How effective is the work of the REACH Committee?

12345





*76. How effective is the work of the Member States Committee (MSC)?

12345



The experience provided by invited experts is considered as very useful

for the decision making process.

*

*

22



There is generally a need for more discussions. The decision making

itself could be made more effective if more cases were decided by

written procedure. The meetings sometimes last until quite late in the

evening. It would be preferable to close meetings earlier and to add

another meeting day.

*79. How effective is the work of the Risk Assessment Committee (RAC)?

12345



The work effectiveness of RAC depends on the regulatory process, in

which RAC is involved, and thus in the following we refer to these

different procedures.

For the CLH process fast track procedure is foreseen for hazard

endpoints, for which classification is unambiguous. Only critical issues

are considered and discussed in the plenary.

The commenting phase for the draft opinion is well in advance of the RAC

plenary meeting and the critical issues raised by the experts are

already considered by the Rapporteurs in advance granting a rather

efficient opinion development.

To improve the efficiency of the restriction process a Restriction

Efficiency Task Force (RETF) has been established, based on the results

of a questionnaire carried out in December 2013 among RAC and SEAC

members, MSCAs and accredit stakeholder observers of RAC and SEAC. This

is a useful first step into improving efficiency of the process.

For the Authorisation process, a revised working procedure for RAC and

SEAC for developing opinions has recently been implemented. At the

moment it is not possible to state whether there will be a need of

further improvement on the working procedure.

*

23



For the CLH process no improvement of effectiveness can be envisaged.

Issues which are currently discussed in the plenary are in our opinion

of importance and relevant.

For the Authorisation process, the effectiveness could be improved by

improving the quality of the applications. If the data are thorough and

comprehensible the whole process could be much more efficient for RAC

and SEAC.

At the moment it is difficult to say whether the implementation of the

Efficiency Task Force (RETF´s) recommendations will be a complete

success with regard to increase RAC´s work in efficiency.

*82. How effective is the work of the Socio-Economic Committee (SEAC)?

12345



The effectiveness of the work of SEAC has improved substantially over

the last years due to streamlining the procedures, strengthening SEAC’s

competences, gaining routine in handling restriction dossiers and

authorisation applications and due to the fact that more and more

members are actively getting involved in the work of SEAC. However,

there is still room for improvement, mainly when it comes to the equal

distribution of work within the committee (all members to be actively

involved in the opinion making process). Furthermore, it is of utmost

importance that members have the appropriate expertise for the work of

SEAC.

*

24



Applications for authorisation: the work of SEAC on evaluating

authorisation applications could be improved substantially if a higher

quality of authorisation applications could be ensured. It is of utmost

importance that authorisation applications are in a shape so that RAC

and SEAC can evaluate them, without performing their own assessment. It

should be clearly communicated to industry that submitting bad quality

applications and not being transparent hampers the assessment by RAC and

SEAC and might have consequences when it comes to the formulation of

opinions.

Restriction dossiers: the efficiency of the restriction process in SEAC

was already improved, e.g. due to the work of the restriction efficiency

task force (RETF), which formulated tailor-made recommendations for all

involved actors. The implementation of all recommendations ensures, in

our view, the further improvement of SEAC’s work on restriction

dossiers.

For both, the restriction and authorisation procedure, the further

streamlining of formats and committee-internal processes could

additionally improve the efficiency of SEAC’s work.

*85. How effective is the work of the CARACAL (Competent Authorities for Reach and CLP)?

12345



*

25



There are still too many purely presentational issues on the agenda of

CARACAL meetings. These could be further reduced in order to create

additional room for discussion.

The tracking document seems to have disappeared, we suggest COM to

update and continue this very useful document.

For the discussion of additional specific issues, separate telephone

conferences should be considered.

Room translations (as formally requested by some parties) do not

necessarily improve the comprehensibility of speakers as the translation

of technical (chemical) expressions is often quite poor.

*88. How effective is the work of the Risk Communication Network (RCN)?

12345





*

26

*91. How effective is the work of the HelpNet Committee?

12345



The development of FAQ is well established, HELPEX is considered as a

very good tool.



Theme 7: Information on Dossier Evaluation and SubstanceEvaluation activities

Dossier evaluation

*94. Has the Member State been involved in Dossier evaluation within the reporting period?

YesNo

Substance evaluation

*102. Has the Member State been involved in substance evaluation within the reporting period?

YesNo

*

*

*

27

25

5

5

*103. How many substances evaluated resulted in a draft decision within the reporting period?Please insert a figure.

*104. On average, how many person-days have been employed in the evaluation of eachsubstance within the reporting period?Please insert a figure.

*105. On average, how many person-days have been employed in the decision-making of eachsubstance within the reporting period?Please insert a figure.

106. Indicate if possible what tasks have been most demanding in terms of resources:

The preparation of draft decisions in the decision making process due to

time constraints

107. Please indicate the number of each type of staff that are involved in substance evaluation:

0 1-5 6-10 >10

*Toxicologist

*Ecotoxicologist

*Chemist

*Risk Assessor

*Social-Economic Analyst

*Exposure Assessor

*Other (please list):

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

28

*108. Do you outsource substance evaluations to external contractors?

YesNo

*109. Have you collaborated with other Member States in any of these evaluations within thereporting period?

YesNo

*110. Have you initiated any action under other REACH processes as a consequence ofsubstance evaluation performed by you or another Member States (e.g. Annex VI dossier forharmonised C&L, annex XV dossier for SVHC ID or restriction, other non-REACH regulatoryaction) within the reporting period?

YesNo

*If yes, please specify the action:

Submission of an Annex VI dossier for harmonised C&L

111. What are the financial resources dedicated by your Member State to substance evaluation?

Annually about 100.000 € (fees from ECHA excluded)

112. Do the fees delivered for evaluation equate the financial resources involved in substanceevaluation?

YesNo

113. Do you foresee an increase of resources dedicated to substance evaluation in the comingyears?

YesNo

*

*

*

*

29

6

10

114. Have you encountered any problems while carrying out the substance evaluation?YesNo

If yes, please specify:

The time frames are tight and human resources are limited (in total and

during particular steps of the process), therefore efforts are required

to make the process more efficient and less time consuming (focus of

work should be evaluation). The significant reduction of fees is not

compensated by savings due to improvements of the process during the

last years. Hence, the gap between the provided share of fees and the

actual expenditure on evaluation work tends to further increase.

Theme 8: Annex XV Dossiers (restriction and identification of SVHC)and other points related to the identification of SVHC

Annex XV Restriction Dossiers

*115. Has the Member State been involved in the preparation of Annex XV Restriction Dossierswithin the reporting period?

YesNo

Annex XV SVHC Dossiers

*131. Has the Member State been involved in the preparation of Annex XV SVHC Dossiers?

YesNo

*132. How many Annex XV SVHC dossiers has the Member State prepared within the reportingperiod?

Please insert a figure.

*133. Among these how many were co-prepared with other Member State/ECHA?Please insert a figure.

*

*

*

*

30

5

0

5

25

*134. How many person-days were dedicated to the development of Annex XV SVHC dossiers?Please insert a figure.

*135. How many person-days were dedicated to the assessment of Annex XV SVHC dossiers?Please insert a figure.

*136. How many times a representative of your Member State has been nominated rapporteurunder the Member States Committee (MSC) within the reporting period?Please insert a figure.

*137. How many dossiers prepared by other Member States has the Member State contributed toor commented upon within the reporting period?Please insert a figure.

*

*

*

*

31

138. What expertise is available for preparing Annex XV SVHC dossiers (in FTEs available peryear)?

0 1-3 4-6 7-9 >9

*Chemist

*Toxicologist

*Ecotoxicologist

*Economist

*Enforcement

*Legal

*Policy

*Exposure Assessor

*Risk Assessor

*Other

*139. Do you outsource the preparation of Annex XV SVHC dossiers?

YesNo

Please provide additional comment if needed:


*141. Has there been any enterprises consultation/involvement in the preparation of MemberState dossiers?

YesNo

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

32

*142. If yes, what was the level of involvement of enterprises in the preparation of Member Statedossiers?

1 = Very low (not involved at all); 2 = Low (involved but not of any great significance); 3 = Medium (reasonably

involved); 4 = High (highly involved); 5 = Very high (fully involved)

12345



Consultation was based on questionnaires to the registrants in the frame

of RMOA

*143. Among these enterprises, were there SMEs also consulted/involved in the preparationof Member State dossiers?

YesNo



Other points related to the identification of SVHC

145. Do you consider that there is enough coordination between ECHA and Member States duringthe implementation of the SVHC Roadmap?

YesNo

*

*

33

146. What were the financial and human resources dedicated to SVHCs identification (bothscreening and preparation of an Annex XV dossier) before and after the agreement on theSVHCs Roadmap in March 2013?

The financial costs for human resources can be estimated to about

150.000 € per year related to the preparatory work, the dossier drafting

and the follow-up work for about 2 dossiers per year. The costs under

the Roadmap are expected to be of a similar order of magnitude as before

the Roadmap.

Theme 9: Information on REACH enforcement activities

General information

*147. Please explain how the enforcement of REACH is organised in your country; pleaseconcentrate on the changes from the last reporting:

For a definition of 'enforcement', please refer to the glossary.

There are no significant changes as compared to the previous report,

except of the update of the Chemicals Law:

The implementation and enforcement of REACH is laid down in the

Chemicals Act (Chemikaliengesetz 1996, FLG No 53/1997 last amendment by

FLG No I 14/2015). In accordance with this Federal Act, the Competent

Authority for REACH is the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry,

Environment and Water Management (BMLFUW). It supervises the various

inspection, supervision, monitoring and enforcement activities of the

Chemical Inspectorates which act as enforcement authorities in each of

the nine Austrian Federal States (Länder). Expertise and laboratory

resources for assistance of the enforcement authorities is available at

the Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt, UBA)

*148. Are the national enforcement authority(ies) in charge of REACH, only dealing with REACH?

YesNo

*

*

34

*If No, what are their additional responsibilities?

The portfolio of additional competences vary considerably as the

organisational structure of the body competent for enforcement of REACH

in each Federal State is very much different. Authorities can be more

health service oriented, more environmental protection oriented or more

oriented to general permitting of industrial sites. For effectivity

purposes there is also a comprehensive enforcement competence for a

broad portfolio of all existing chemicals related (Union and national)

legislation.

149. Describe the general status of the resources allocated to enforcing authorities for tasksrelated to the enforcement of REACH (assessment of annual budget and staff):1800 character(s) maximum

In each of the Länder there is at least one inspection organ and one

legal expert (at least at a part time level) available for enforcement

activities. Additional coordination resource is available in the Federal

Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt) and in the BMLFUW. In average a

resource of one man year is available for enforcement activities in the

field in each of the Länder, making 9 man year of resources in total for

enforcement activities related to ALL chemicals legislation in the

competence of the inspectorates.

Enforcement Strategy(ies)

General information on the enforcement strategy (or strategies) in place within the MemberState

*150. Has an overall strategy been devised and implemented for the enforcement of REACH?For a definition of 'enforcement', please refer to the glossary.

Yes devisedYes implementedNo

*151. Is(are) the strategy(ies) in line with the strategy devised by the Forum?

Forum strategy as described in the document “Strategies for enforcement of Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 concerning

the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and of Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008

on the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP)” as adopted at the 9th meeting of the

Forum on 1-3 March 2011.

YesNo

*

*

*

35

*152. Please outline the enforcement strategy within the Member State:

The general monitoring and enforcement strategy for REACH is based upon

the experiences in implementing the previous Directives for chemicals,

in particular 67/548/EWG, 1999/45/EG and 76/769/EWG. It has been

developed in closed co-operation with the Chemical Inspectorates and is

reviewed and adjusted in certain intervals as required.

The overall approach follows the basic principles of the

REACH-Regulation starting from the “no data no market” rule.

Inspection schemes are prepared by the Inspectorates and coordinated

with the BMLFUW in order to ensure that REACH duties are enforced as

comprehensively as possible. On a regular basis special inspection cases

are selected (companies, branches, products) where enforcement

authorities focus their activities and measures.

The Chemical Inspectorates report to the BMLFUW on their activities and

meet for coordination and training twice a year.

See also the information is provided on ECHA´s website:

http://echa.europa.eu/de/view-article/-/journal_content/b1284a69-e2f2-40

49-9a7e-730222a7252c

*153. What type of activities does this strategy entail?

It aims to control all relevant aspects like registration,

authorisation, restrictions, information dissemination etc. The

monitoring activities strive to cover the complete supply chain by

checking manufacturers, importers, distributors, including both

wholesalers and retailers, and downstream users. Enforcement is based on

measures available in the Chemicals Act and in the general legislation

on administrative procedures. Enforcement also includes penalties

applicable for infringements of REACH.

Sanctions available to enforcing authorities are:

- Issuing of formal notices and cautions,

- Commissioning actions towards re-establishing of lawful conditions,

- Commissioning compulsory safety measures,

- Confiscation of products,

- Introduction of legal proceedings on penalties by civil means

*154. Is this enforcement strategy publicly available?

YesNo

Inspection strategy

*

*

*

36

156. Describe the REACH inspection strategy:

For a definition of 'inspection', please refer to the glossary.

Inspections are mostly preformed on a routine basis either as part of a

campaign (regional, national, European) or without a campaign context.

In addition, inspections also occur triggered by observations (internal,

external) of suspected contraventions.

REACH inspections comprise an integral part of the routine chemicals

inspection scheme of the enforcement authorities since 2007. As a basic

principle of the applied inspection methodology the focus is put on

on-site inspections of REACH duty holders. Site visits include detailed

documentation of the checks carried out and measures taken, and in many

cases follow-up examinations of the relevant documentation for the case.

Cases for inspections (companies, products) are selected either through

an inspection scheme of the Chemical Inspectorates or the BMLFUW. Checks

may also be triggered by complaints or incidents or could result from

follow-up activities of previous inspections. A major REACH-focus

addresses the duty for information in the supply chain.

Inspection activities have focused on the following issues:

- Inspections of the full supply chain including producers, importers,

distributors and downstream user

- Controls of safety data sheets including checks of information contain

in the SDS

- Controls of labelling and packaging requirements

- Checks for compliance with restrictions

- Sampling and analyses

- Registration and pre-registration (see methodology)

*157. How has the inspection strategy evolved from 2010 to 2014?

As the number of coordinated enforcement activities organised in ECHA

Forum has increased substantially the strategy has been changed in order

to increase the rate of national inspection in context of Forum

coordinated enforcement projects (REF, pilot activities) accordingly

(estimated to be at minimum by a factor of 3).

*158. Does your inspection strategy consider the enforcement strategy developed by the FORUMand the activities carried out there?Forum strategy as described in the document “Strategies for enforcement of Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006

concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and of Regulation

(EC) No. 1272/2008 on the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP)” as adopted at

the 9th meeting of the Forum on 1-3 March 2011.

YesNo

*

*

37

20

Please provide examples:

Example element of Forum strategy implemented in Austria: inspections on

a routine basis (routine monitoring concept) complemented by inspections

organised in thematic campaigns

159. Please provide the total number of inspectors that attended training on REACH in yourMember States in the reporting period (2010-2014)?

Co-ordination, co-operation and exchange of information

Explanation of the co-ordination, co-operation and exchange of information, between enforcingauthorities, with Competent Authorities and other authorities from other Member States

*160. Please outline the mechanisms/procedures put in place to ensure cooperation, coordinationand exchange of information on REACH enforcement between enforcing authorities and otherauthorities (within or outside your Member State):

In order to supervise and coordinate the enforcement authorities,

regular meetings between the BMLFUW and the Chemical Inspectorates take

place (two meetings per year). At these meetings typically the following

issues are covered:

1. information about recent developments in the context of the REACH-,

CLP- and other chemicals regulations

2. discussion of specific REACH and CLP issues

3. presentation and discussion of specific enforcement programmes such

as monitoring of restricted substances, control of safety data sheets,

but also implementation of other Regulations and Directives, such as the

VOC-Directive, etc. and interlinks with REACH and CLP.

4. discussion of the national chemical legislation, including also other

aspects than REACH or CLP (e.g. fluorinated gases)

5. reports of the Chemical Inspectors on the results of inspections and

discussion of relevant measures, such as the development of specific

enforcement programmes.

International co-operation within the EU is carried out mainly through

the involvement of the Austrian representative in the Forum of ECHA, in

CLEEN, via enforcement related Twinning projects and TAIEX activities

and via regular bilateral tight contacts and exchange with neighbouring

countrie’s enforcement authorities (Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia,

Slovenia, Italy, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Baden-Württemberg & Bavaria

/ Germany).

*

38

*161. Describe how these mechanisms have operated in practice during the reporting period (e.g.regular meetings, joint training, joint inspections, co-ordinated projects and so on):

See response to question no. 160

*162. From Forum activities, which ones do you consider most relevant to enhance coordination,cooperation and exchange of information among Member States:

Joint Forum trainings for national trainers and Forum coordinated

enforcement projects based on harmonised inspection methodologies


*163. Provide details on enforcement activities carried out with other Member States outside theremit of the Forum:

Enforcement activities with other MSs and outside Forum (but within

REACH) are targeting a number of bilateral exchange of cross-border

enforcement cases and have already long term tradition (e.g. under

CLEEN)

*

*

*

39

164. Describe any other measures/relevant information:

For a definition of 'measure', please refer to the glossary.


2010-2014 Reporting on enforcement activities

Number of dutyholders

165. Provide an estimate of the total number of dutyholders who are likely to have duties imposedon them by REACH:

For a definition of 'dutyholder' please refer to the glossary.

The dutyholder principal role is the highest position the dutyholder has within the supply chain. For example, if a

manufacturer of a substance is also a downstream user of others, then its principal role should be regarded as

manufacturer.

If no information is available for a specific year, please indicate N/A in the corresponding box

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number ofdutyholders 117 189 86 178 73

166. Provide an estimate of the above dutyholders who are likely to be considered as registrantsas defined by REACH:


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number ofdutyholders 6 21 6 15 25

*167. What was the total number of official controls such as inspections or investigations ormonitoring, or other enforcement measures carried out by enforcing authorities in which REACHwas covered and/or enforced during the reporting period?For definitions of 'investigation' or 'monitoring', please refer to the glossary.

2392

*

40

*168. State the number of subject to enforcement activities:manufacturers


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number ofmanufacturers 19 22 42 17 62

Were these mainly:

For definitions of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, please refer to the glossary.

The category 'not applicable' can be filled in case you have information on the size of industry but it does not

allow you to complete the three categories (Small, Medium, Large).

Micro Small Medium Large No information N/a

*2010

*2011

*2012

*2013

*2014

*169. State the number of subject to enforcement activities:only representatives


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Number of onlyrepresentatives

1 0 0 0 5

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

41

Were these mainly:


*2010

*2011

*2012

*2013

*2014

*170. State the number of subject to enforcement activities:distributors


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number ofdistributors 116 134 112 106 130

Were these mainly:


*2010

*2011

*2012

*2013

*2014

*171. State the number of subject to enforcement activities:downstream users


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number ofdownstream users 98 118 79 79 68

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

42

Were these mainly:


*2010

*2011

*2012

*2013

*2014

*172. State the number of subject to enforcement activities:importers

If no information is available for a specific year, please indicate N/A in the corresponding box.

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number ofimporters 6 11 25 29 33

Were these mainly:


*2010

*2011

*2012

*2013

*2014

Number of official controls prompted by…

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

43

*173. Have there been complaints or concerns received by enforcing authorities in relation toalleged contraventions of the REACH Regulation?

Controls are understood as inspections or investigations or monitoring, or other enforcement measures carried

out by enforcing activities.


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number ofcontrols 45 50 15 29 24

*174. Incidents (e.g. accidents such as poisoning or other dangerous occurrences)?


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014


*175. Monitoring activities?


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014


*176. Results of an inspection?


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014


Number of official controls which addressed…

*

*

*

*

44

*177. Registration:




2010 2011 2012 2013 2014


Cases ofnon-compliancefound

1 2 0 8 4

*178. Registration and notification of substances in Articles:


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014



0 0 0 0 0

*179. Information in the supply chain:


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014



28 29 42 83 88

*180. Duty to communicate information on substances in articles:


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of controls 21 41 25 32 56


15 10 0 11 1

*

*

*

*

45

*181. Restrictions:


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of controls 113 138 129 87 89


6 7 12 3 3

*182. Authorisations:


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014



0 0 0 0 0

*183. Imported goods:If no information is available for a specific year, please indicate N/A in the corresponding box.

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014



0 0 0 3 2

Number of official controls which resulted in...

*184. No areas of infringement found:


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014


*

*

*

*

46

*185. Verbal or written advice:


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014


*186. Legal proceedings:


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014


*187. Convictions:


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014


188. Other:If no information is available for a specific year, please indicate N/A in the corresponding box.

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014


If 'Other', please specify:

189. Please provide information on difficulties encountered during REACH official controls:

Supply chain to get informations from foreign enterprises

*

*

*

47

0

0

190. Please provide information on good practices related to REACH official controls:

No response provided as the question was not clearly understood

Sanctions

191. Describe the different sanctions that can be used in case of contravention of REACH, e.g.enforcement notices and other sanctions such as on-the-spot fines or undertakings, officialreprimands such as formal cautions or warnings, and legal proceedings (whether criminal or civilin nature):The answer to this question is to be given only if the position has changed since the last reporting period.

Confiscation, punishment according to administrative law

Appeals

192. Please state the number of appeals against REACH enforcement National EnforcementAuthority decisions in your Member State in the reporting period (2010 – 2014):

193. Please state the number of REACH enforcement National Enforcement Authority decisions inyour Member State that were overturned by ruling of a domestic or EU court of law in thereporting period (2010-2014):

Theme 10: CLP enforcement activities

General information

48

*194. Please explain how competent authorities are organised for the enforcement of CLP in yourcountry; please concentrate on the changes from the last reporting:



*195. How many authorities are in charge of CLP enforcement? Please provide their names:


196. Describe the general status of the resources allocated to enforcing authorities for tasksrelated to the enforcement of CLP (assessment of annual budget and staff):1800 character(s) maximum


Enforcement Strategy(ies)

General information on the enforcement strategy (or strategies) in place within the MemberState

*197 Has an overall strategy or strategies been implemented for the enforcement of the CLPRegulation?

YesNo

*

*

*

49

*198. Is(are) the strategy(ies) in line with the strategy devised by the Forum?Forum strategy as described in the document “Strategies for enforcement of Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006




YesNo

*199. Please outline the enforcement strategy within the Member State, and themethodology/techniques used (this should include a description of the criteria by whichdutyholders were selected for enforcement activities):

The general monitoring and enforcement strategy for CLP is based upon

the experiences in implementing the previous Directives for chemicals,

in particular 67/548/EWG and 1999/45/EG. It has been developed in closed

co-operation with the Chemical Inspectorates and is reviewed and

adjusted in certain intervals as required.

The overall approach follows the basic principles of the CLP-Regulation

starting from the obligation to classify, label and package which

applies to various duty holders. The actual CLP duty of a dutyholder

also contributes to selecting a specific enforcement case.

Inspection schemes are prepared by the Inspectorates and coordinated

with the BMLFUW in order to ensure that CLP duties are enforced as

comprehensively as possible. On a regular basis special inspection cases

are selected (companies, branches, products) where enforcement

authorities focus their activities and measures.

The Chemical Inspectorates report to the BMLFUW on their activities and

meet for coordination and training twice a year.

*

*

50

*200. Provide information on the level and extent of monitoring activities undertaken (this shouldinclude a description of the criteria by which substances, mixtures, articles etc. were selected formonitoring):For a definition of monitoring activities, please refer to the glossary.

The aim is to control all relevant aspects of the C&L-, packaging-,

notification- and documentation- obligations in a broad sense. The

monitoring activities strive to cover the complete supply chain by

checking manufacturers, importers, formulators, distributors, including

both wholesalers and retailers, and downstream users. Enforcement is

based on measures available in the Chemicals Act and in the general

legislation on administrative procedures. Enforcement also includes

penalties applicable for infringements of CLP.

Sanctions available to enforcing authorities are:

- Issuing of formal notices and cautions,

- Commissioning actions towards re-establishing of lawful conditions,

- Commissioning compulsory safety measures,

- Confiscation of products,

- Introduction of legal proceedings on penalties by civil means

*201. Is this enforcement strategy publicly available?

YesNo

Inspection Strategy

*

*

51

203. Describe the CLP inspection strategy:

For a definition of 'inspection', please refer to the glossary.

Inspections are mostly preformed on a routine basis either as part of a

campaign (regional, national, European) or without a campaign context.

In addition, inspections also occur triggered by observations (internal,

external) of suspected contraventions.

CLP inspections comprise an integral part of the routine chemicals

inspection scheme of the enforcement authorities since 1991. As a basic

principle of the applied inspection methodology the focus is put on

on-site inspections of CLP duty holders. Site visits include detailed

documentation of the checks carried out and measures taken, and in many

cases follow-up examinations of the relevant documentation for the case.

Cases for inspections (companies, products) are selected either through

an inspection scheme of the Chemical Inspectorates or the BMLFUW. Checks

may also be triggered by complaints or incidents or could result from

follow-up activities of previous inspections. A major REACH-focus

addresses the duty for information in the supply chain.

Inspection activities have focused on the following issues:

- Inspections of the full supply chain including manufacturers,

importers, formulators, distributors and downstream user

- Controls of safety data sheets including checks of information contain

in the SDS

- Controls of labelling and packaging requirements

- Control of the notification requirement

*204. How has the inspection strategy evolved from 2011 to 2014?

Evolvement of the strategy has mainly included the shift of C&L to the

new CLP scheme (and the new distribution of obligation among duty

holders in the supply chain) for substances and mixtures and the

obligatory changes required in the C&L information of SDSs.

*205. Does your inspection strategy consider the enforcement strategy developed by the FORUMand the activities carried out there?Forum strategy as described in the document “Strategies for enforcement of Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006




YesNo

*

*

52

20


Example element of Forum strategy implemented in Austria: inspections on

a routine basis (routine monitoring concept) complemented by inspections

organised in thematic campaigns

206. Please provide the total number of inspectors that attended training on CLP in your MemberState in the reporting period (2011-2014):

Co-ordination, co-operation and exchange of information

Explanation of the co-ordination, co-operation and exchange of information, between enforcingauthorities, with Competent Authorities and other authorities from other Member States

*207. Please outline the mechanisms/procedures put in place to ensure cooperation, coordinationand exchange of information on CLP enforcement between enforcing authorities and otherauthorities (within or outside your Member State):


*208. Describe how these mechanisms have operated in practice during the reporting period (e.g.regular meetings, joint training, joint inspections, co-ordinated projects and so on):


2011-2014 Reporting on enforcement activities

*

*

53

*209. What was the total number of official controls, such as inspections or investigations, or otherenforcement measures carried out by enforcing authorities in which CLP was covered and/orenforced during the reporting period?For a definition of 'inspection' and 'investigation', please refer to the glossary.

2011 2012 2013 2014

Number ofcontrols 112 115 132 271

210. If applicable, please add a description of the other enforcement measures carried out in thisreporting period:


Number of dutyholders

211. Provide an estimate of the total number of dutyholders who are likely to have duties imposedon them by CLP:

For a definition of 'dutyholder', please refer to the glossary.

The dutyholder principal role is the highest position the dutyholder has within the supply chain. For example, if a

manufacturer of a substance is also a downstream user of others, then its principal role should be regarded as

manufacturer.


2011 2012 2013 2014

Number ofdutyholders 11 0 5 35

Dutyholders subject to official controls

*212. State the number of subject to enforcement activities under CLP:manufacturers


2011 2012 2013 2014

Number ofmanufacturers 15 10 7 21

*

*

54

Were these mainly:

For definitions of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, please refer to the glossary.

The category not applicable can be filled in case you have information on the size of industry but it does not allow

you to complete the three categories (Small, Medium, Large).


*2011

*2012

*2013

*2014

*213. State the number of subject to enforcement activities under CLP:distributors


2011 2012 2013 2014

Number ofdistributors 19 51 59 140

Were these mainly:


*2011

*2012

*2013

*2014

*214. State the number of subject to enforcement activities under CLP:downstream users


2011 2012 2013 2014

Number ofdownstreamusers

77 43 50 71

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

55

Were these mainly:


*2011

*2012

*2013

*2014

*215. State the number of subject to enforcement activities under CLP:importers


2011 2012 2013 2014

Number ofimporters 0 5 1 7

Were these mainly:


*2011

*2012

*2013

*2014

Number of official controls prompted by…

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

56

*216. Have there been complaints or concerns received by enforcing authorities in relation toalleged contraventions of the CLP Regulation?




2011 2012 2013 2014


*217. Incidents (e.g. accidents such as poisoning or other dangerous occurrences)?


2011 2012 2013 2014


*218. Monitoring activities?


2011 2012 2013 2014


*219. Results of an inspection?


2011 2012 2013 2014


Number of official controls which addressed…

*220. Hazard classification:


2011 2012 2013 2014



6 2 4 14

*

*

*

*

*

57

*221. Hazard communication in the form of labelling:


2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of controls 87 87 103 195


6 2 4 14

*222. Packaging:


2011 2012 2013 2014



0 0 1 5

*223. Harmonisation of classification and labelling of substances:


2011 2012 2013 2014



0 0 0 1

*224. Notification to the classification and labelling inventory according to Article 40:


2011 2012 2013 2014



1 2 1 3

*

*

*

*

58

*225. Other common provisions, such as the obligation to maintain information and requests forinformation:


2011 2012 2013 2014



0 0 0 0

*226. Imported goods:If no information is available for a specific year, please indicate N/A in the corresponding box.

2011 2012 2013 2014



0 0 1 1

*227. Other CLP obligations:


2011 2012 2013 2014



0 4 0 2

Number of official contols which resulted in...

*228. No areas of infringement found:


2011 2012 2013 2014


*229. Verbal or written advice:


2011 2012 2013 2014


*

*

*

*

*

59

*230. Legal proceedings:


2011 2012 2013 2014


*231. Convictions:


2011 2012 2013 2014


232. Other:

2011 2012 2013 2014

Number ofcontrols

If 'Other', please specify:

Sanctions

233. Describe the different sanctions that can be used in case of contravention of the CLPRegulation, e.g. enforcement notices and other sanctions such as on-the-spot fines orundertakings, official reprimands such as formal cautions or warnings, and legal proceedings(whether criminal or civil in nature):

The answer to this question needs only be given if the position has changed since the last reporting period or is

different to that provided by virtue of CLP Article 47.

Confiscation, punishment by administrative law

*

*

60

0

0

Appeals

234. Please state the number of appeals against CLP enforcement National EnforcementAuthority decisions in your Member State in the reporting period (2011 – 2014):

235. Please state the number of CLP enforcement National Enforcement Authority decisions inyour Member State that were overturned by ruling of a domestic or EU court of lawNew NumberQuestion in the reporting period (2011 – 2014):

Other enforcement activity not covered elsewhere

236. Provide details on enforcement activities carried out at the request / suggestion of ECHA:

No significant experiences

237. Provide details on enforcement activities carried out at the request of other Member States,e.g. where cross-border issues are detected and communicated:


238. Detail any other measures taken pursuant to articles 46(1) and 47 of the CLP Regulation, orany other information you wish to provide for the purposes of this part of the Report:For a definition of 'measure', please refer to the glossary.


61

Theme 11: Information on the effectiveness of REACH on theprotection of human health and the environment, and the promotionof alternative methods, and innovation and competition

239. Do you think that the effects of REACH would be better evaluated at a Member State or atEU level?

Member State levelEU level

240. Please provide a brief explanation of your response:


No preference was made as the AT CA believes that evaluation should be

carried out on both levels. We would like to note that recently a study

on the costs and benefits of REACH in Austria has been finalised. The

study results are attached to this report.

241. What parameters are available at Member State level that could be used to assess theeffectiveness of REACH in a baseline study?


The Austrian CA refers to the study on costs and benefits of REACH in

Austria which is attached to this report.. We refer to this study

regarding the parameters which can be provided at MS level.

Theme 12: Other issues / recommendations / ideas

242. Please provide any further information on the implementation of REACH that the MemberState considers relevant:


62

*243. Do you wish to upload documents in support of this submission?

YesNo

*If Yes, please provide a brief description of the documents that you are uploading (you mayupload more than one document):

Report on the study "REACH - Evaluation of the impact on the affected

industries and the whole economy in Austria”

The objective of this study is to analyse and quantify the impact of the

Regulation (EC) no. 1907/2006 (REACH) on the Austrian economy so far,

which came in force on June 1st 2007. In Austria the companies and

authorities affected by the regulation are now already familiar with the

requirements of the REACH Regulation, due to the almost six-year period

of implementation. For this reason, experiences concerning the impact of

this regulation, which is the focus of the study, are available.

The first part of the study deals with the impacts on the companies and

their experiences on registrations and accrued costs.

As a first step, a direct stakeholder survey through interviews and a

workshop was conducted. Within the study, companies of various

industries were interviewed for a detailed survey. This ensures that the

effects were queried directly by the companies concerned and thus the

space for purely theoretical considerations has been minimized. The

information from the companies is, along with the existing statistical

and economic data, the base for the analysis. As a next step and in

addition to general research, statistics on registrations to the

European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) were requested and cost scenarios for

Austria are made.

In the second part of the study, the effects of EU chemicals policy on

the whole Austrian economy are analysed and quantified as far as

possible. The analysis consists essentially of comparative static

comparison of the hypothetical situation without REACH Regulation and

the currently given situation after the entry into force of REACH

Regulation. As a central methodological approach, input-output analysis

is used. The investigation focuses on static effects.

In the third part a benefit-cost-analysis framework is applied to

determine the feasibility and economic efficiency of the REACH system by

quantifying and monetizing all relevant benefits and costs that are

associated with the implementation of this regulation. Public and

occupational health benefits, environmental benefits and business

benefits are foremost analysed.

Please upload your file• 4abce372-37b8-4a4d-89ab-ae43d2f534a1/150306_REACH_Final_Report_EN_V1.1.pdf

*

*

63

You may upload one or more documents.

Background DocumentsGlossary (/eusurvey/files/457b4be8-39e0-4dc4-87ba-703092ec1ddb)

Contact [email protected]

https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/files/457b4be8-39e0-4dc4-87ba-703092ec1ddb

Member States Reporting under REACH art. 117 / CLP...

Documents

Transcript of Member States Reporting under REACH art. 117 / CLP...