Has a competent authority issued any product-specific classification or authorization, or is the stated position currently the company's legal argument?

Has a competent authority issued any product-specific classification or authorization, or is the stated position currently the company's legal argument?

No authority has issued a classification or an authorisation for the filter, and the company classifies the filter itself.

No authorisation, approval, notification or registration under the Regulation is required. No prior decision of any authority is required. The company classifies the filter itself. The filter is not a biocidal product and not a treated article. The company therefore classifies the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter as neither a biocidal product nor a treated article. The statement records one exchange with a European institution, and it is general. On 22 October 2025 a Member of the European Parliament put written question E-004160/2025 to the Commission on Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 and filtration technologies. On 16 December 2025 the Commission answered: “The Commission considers that mere filtration systems which do not use any active substance would not be covered by the scope of Regulation (EU) 528/2012 (BPR), as the regulation excludes products acting by ‘mere physical or mechanical action’ (Article 3(1)(a)).” The Commission added that “an action which is physical, but also biological/chemical, remains within the scope of the BPR”. That answer is a statement about the scope of the Regulation. It is not a decision about this product.

Source: C-POLAR Technologies, Inc. — Statement of Regulatory Status for NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, 11 September 2026; European Parliament — answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission to question E-004160/2025, 16 December 2025, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2025-004160-ASW_EN.pdf.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.