Position Paper - REACH Revision: Automotive Industry Perspective

ACEA position paper REACH revision:The automotive industry INTRODUCTION The automotive industry has successfully worked towards the objectives of REACH. Formany years, however, we have realised several shortcomings that would benefit from Our sector is having several roles under REACH including the importer, distributor, producerof articles, and downstream user. In addition, our main role, which is the assembler of For simplification purposes, we reference this role as “end users” in this paper. While theresponsibilities of other roles are also relevant to our business, this document specifically Considering our extensive global supply chain, the intricate nature of our products ascomplex objects, and the necessity for sustained market availability for repairs, the execution KEY RECOMMENDATIONS Make the Risk Management Option Analysis (RMOA) mandatory The result would be a clear regulatoryand effectiveplanto ensure a high level of protectionfor human health and the environment by reducing risks caused by hazardous substances. Improve the Authorisationandthe Restrictionprocess The current authorisation system cannot cope with the number of applications, causing asignificant backlog of work for the authorities and uncertainty for industry.AuthorisationandRestrictionprocesses should be mergedto create a fairer, more workable system.A Substances and mixtures–Simplifications Introducing ageneric Mixture Allocation Factor would impose significant administrativeburdens without effectively addressing combined exposures. The reference to chemicalsafety reports for mixturesshould be deleted.The targets for occupational safety and Improve data quality and data exchange& Digital Product Passports(DPPs) Data quality must be strengthened by mandating structured digital Safety Data Sheets andfull disclosure of any regulated substances they contain.DPPs would be unworkable for MAKE THE RISK MANAGEMENT OPTION ANALYSIS (RMOA) Today, it is still up to each member state to decide whether or not to undergo the RMOAprocess. This results in regulatory actions without fully understanding the consequences ofinefficient and costly tasks both for regulators and industry, or of overlapping or contradicting Ourproposals are the following: •The harmonised hazard classification of a substance shall be the prerequisite for theassessment of risk under the RMOA.•Mandatory supply-chain communication, similar to REACH Art. 33.1 should be IMPROVE AUTHORISATION The authorisation process has proven to be inefficient and unworkable, especially forchemicals with a broad range of usesand /or applications. Furthermore, the authorisation Our proposals are as follows: •In order to simplify the overall process and to set a level playing field and planningcertainty fortheEUindustry,the authorisation shall be merged with the restriction •When new scientific evidence is available for a Candidate List substance and it nolonger meets the criteria ofArt.57, it should be removed from the Candidate List(Art.59). This, in order to withdraw the resulting obligations following the similar IMPROVE RESTRICTION For typicalend-user industries, the restriction process is the most impactful REACHrequirement. While working intensively towards full and efficient compliance,the automotive Our proposalsare the following: •Products vary broadly in their complexity, durability,and technical specifications. Forthe derogation process, by definition, the principle that there isno“one-size-fits- all”solutionneeds to be accepted: a mandatory evaluation of sector specifics for •Apply therisk-based approach.The trigger for a restrictionshallalways be the riskas concluded by the mandatory RMOA process and not only the hazard •Thecriteria forgroup restrictionsought to solely rely on the same harmonisedhazard classification and risk profile, unlike in the proposeduniversalPFAS(uPFAS)restriction. By definition,arestriction ought toalways include anexhaustive list of clear numerical identifiers that are globally recognised, ideallywithCAS numbers. The number of substances included should be manageable (e.g. •Adapt theGeneric Risk Approach(GRA).REACH already restricts the use ofhazardous substances with carcinogenic, mutagenic,and toxic to reproductionproperties (CMR) using a generic risk approach. This means these substances arealready heavily regulated even if no specific risk has been proven. However, in To allow their use when necessary, the generic risk approach (REACH,Art.68.2)must include a defined process where stakeholders need to be informed aboutplanned bans to provide feedback that, by definition, must be taken intoconsideration when defining the necessary derogations.Thisbecomes even more •Withdrawreporting obligations. Ingeneral,upcoming restrictions must avoidreporting obligations for supply-chain actors (ieuPFAS), unless there is aprovenneed for human health and environment under consideration of all relevant socio-economic aspects. Exist