The European Commission is exploring ways to improve REACH without reopening the law, including changes to annexed information requirements and more intensive discussions at an earlier stage on whether restriction or authorisation is the most appropriate tool, delegates heard at a Brussels conference yesterday.
After ruling out a full revision of REACH as politically and economically unfeasible, the Commission is now discussing a package of "simplification and modernisation" measures to be delivered through comitology – subject to a vote in the REACH committee of member state authorities – and implementing acts.
The executive has not provided a timeline for unveiling the package. However, EU ministers meeting at tomorrow’s Environment Council are expected to urge the Commission to present it as soon as possible and before the end of the year, according to several member state authorities.
The package may include provisions to strengthen enforcement across the EU and promote the uptake of new approach methodologies (NAMs) to reduce vertebrate animal testing by streamlining certain procedures, high-level speakers told delegates at the EU/US Trends and Developments in Chemicals, Sustainability, Trade and Supply Chain conference.
Hosted by law firm Steptoe, the conference was held under Chatham House Rule, meaning participants’ comments cannot be attributed.
Commission officials are still shaping the proposals and reassessing options, speakers said, as earlier plans centred on a full REACH revision that did not materialise.
The executive is empowered under REACH to change the annexes via the REACH committee and adopt implementing acts to ensure the regulation’s effective functioning. These measures can supplement the legal text but cannot alter it.
Measures under discussion include increased information requirements across the supply chain to enable faster decisions on the appropriate risk management approach – although these would be constrained if introduced via comitology – and greater adherence to the restrictions roadmap to improve predictability and clarity.
Enforcement measures will focus on strengthening cooperation with member state authorities, including ensuring they have access to the necessary technical support and analytical tools. The Commission will also look at requiring authorised representatives for products sold online so that a liable entity is established within the EU.
While legal action against member states that fail to enforce the rules remains an option, this is seen as a last resort and is not currently being actively pursued by the Commission.
PFAS pressure
Conference delegates also received an update on the PFAS restriction proposal following the close of the recent stakeholder consultation on its socio-economic impacts.
The Commission is facing political pressure to bring forward a proposal once ECHA delivers its final opinion, expected by the end of the year. While proposals for other restrictions typically take months to follow an opinion, one speaker said, "It doesn’t seem like that timeline will apply here", citing a commitment to move "very, very quickly".
A key factor is that the restriction would be adopted as an implementing act under REACH, shaping how the decision is taken. Unlike a legislative revision, it will not undergo full scrutiny by the European Parliament and Council of Ministers. However, a vote in the REACH committee of member states could still take months, or even up to a year, delegates heard.
No decision has yet been taken on whether to split the restriction between consumer and industrial uses, despite repeated signals in that direction from environment commissioner Jessika Roswall. "At this point, the Commission is still assessing its options," one speaker said, adding that the final position of ECHA’s Committee for Socio-Economic Analysis (SEAC) remains uncertain.
As the ultimate decision-maker, the Commission can deviate from ECHA’s opinion, as it did, for example, in the TFHxA restriction – but would need to justify any divergence. Such a decision is likely to hinge on considerations of proportionality and economic impact.
If the Commission prioritises consumer uses ahead of industrial applications, this would align with measures already taken by some member states, including France, Denmark and Sweden.
Whatever approach is chosen, communication will be critical. Given the unprecedented scope and scale of the PFAS restriction, the Commission will need to clearly explain its reasoning to provide greater predictability for stakeholders, delegates heard.