On March 26, 2026, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) released the final opinion of its Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) and the draft opinion of its Socio-Economic Analysis Committee (SEAC) on the proposal to restrict per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) under the European Union’s (EU) Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Regulation. According to ECHA, RAC and SEAC “support an EU-wide restriction, subject to specific derogations, on the manufacture, placing on the market and use of PFAS.” ECHA notes that the Committees also recommend that any restriction be complemented by effective measures to minimize emissions. The final RAC opinion and draft SEAC opinion are available on ECHA’s website, as well as questions and answers (Q&A) on the REACH restriction process and the Committees’ opinions. Comments on SEAC’s draft opinion are due May 25, 2026.
Restriction Proposal Uses OECD Definition of PFAS
The scope of the restriction proposal is “[a]ny substance that contains at least one fully fluorinated methyl (CF3-) or methylene (-CF2-) carbon atom (without any H/Cl/Br/I attached to it).” The final RAC and draft SEAC opinions note that this definition is aligned with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) definition of PFAS that was published in 2021, “and that has been scrutinized by the international scientific community and is widely accepted.” According to the opinions, this definition encompasses more than 10,000 PFAS, “including a few fully degradable PFAS subgroups.” Because these fully degradable subgroups do not fulfill the underlying concern of high persistence, the Dossier Submitters excluded them from the scope of their restriction proposal.
The RAC opinion states that, “[w]ith regard to fluoropolymers particularly, RAC recognises that evidence of their mobility, bioaccumulative potential and (eco-)toxicological effects is limited.” According to RAC, the whole lifecycle of fluoropolymers needs to be considered, and their production and waste stages result in emissions of non-polymeric PFAS.
Committees Evaluated 15 Sectors but Did Not Assess Eight Sectors Added to the Draft Background Document
The final RAC and draft SEAC opinions address both the general elements of the restriction proposal and sector-/use-specific aspects. In evaluating the sectors, each Committee focused its evaluation on PFAS manufacturing and the 14 sectors assessed in detail in the 2023 proposal, taking into account the updates introduced for these sectors in the 2025 updated restriction proposal (Draft Background Document). The Committees’ evaluations of sector-/use-specific aspects are contained in separate documents on ECHA’s website. The final RAC and draft SEAC opinions together with the sector-specific evaluations form the Committees’ opinions on the proposed restriction.
The sector-specific evaluations include:
- Sector 1: PFAS manufacturing;
- Sector 2: Textiles, upholstery, leather, apparel and carpets (TULAC);
- Sector 3: Food contact materials and packaging;
- Sector 4: Metal plating and manufacture of metal products;
- Sector 5: Consumer mixtures and miscellaneous consumer articles;
- Sector 6: Cosmetics;
- Sector 7: Ski wax;
- Sector 8: Applications of fluorinated gases;
- Sector 9: Medical devices;
- Sector 10: Transport;
- Sector 11: Electronics and semiconductors;
- Sector 12: Energy;
- Sector 13: Construction products;
- Sector 14: Lubricants; and
- Sector 15: Petroleum and mining.
As reported in our August 29, 2025, memorandum, the Dossier Submitters identified and carried out assessments for eight sectors not specifically named in the 2023 proposal but included in the Draft Background Document:
- Sector 16: Printing applications;
- Sector 17: Sealing applications;
- Sector 18: Machinery applications;
- Sector 19: Other medical applications;
- Sector 20: Military applications;
- Sector 21: Explosives;
- Sector 22: Technical textiles; and
- Sector 23: Broader industrial uses.
In an August 27, 2025, note, ECHA states that “[c]onsidering the sheer scale of this complex restriction proposal, RAC and SEAC have already made good progress in their opinion making on the 14 sectors covered by the original restriction proposal, plus PFAS manufacturing and horizontal issues.” According to ECHA, including the eight sectors added to the Draft Background Document to the RAC and SEAC evaluations “would require significant time beyond 2026 to finalise the opinion with these sectors.” Instead, RAC and SEAC did not carry out sector-specific evaluations of these eight sectors.
Restriction Options Considered
In the Draft Background Document, the Dossier Submitters considered alternative restriction options beyond the full ban restriction option 1 (RO1) or the ban with time-limited derogations for certain applications (RO2) that were included in the 2023 proposal. The Draft Background Document includes a third restriction option (RO3) that would allow continued use under strict conditions that minimize emissions over the full life cycle, i.e., “regulatory options potentially allowing for adequate control of risks through means other than a ban.”
RAC’s Overall Conclusion
The RAC opinion states that “[a]s an overarching principle, RAC generally considers a full ban (RO1) to be more effective than a ban with derogations (RO2 and RO3) in reducing PFAS emission and related uncontrolled risks.” RAC notes an exception is a targeted derogation for certain types of personal protective equipment (PPE) proposed by SEAC to avoid risks to workers.
The restriction proposed by RAC would:
- Beginning 18 months from entry into force of the restriction, ban the manufacture of PFAS;
- Beginning 18 months from entry into force of the restriction, prohibit the sale of the following concentrations in another substance, as a constituent; a mixture; or an article:
- 25 parts per billion (ppb) or more for any PFAS as measured with targeted PFAS analysis (polymeric PFAS excluded from quantification);
- 250 ppb or more for the sum of PFAS measured as sum of targeted PFAS analysis with prior degradation of precursors; and
- 50 ppm or more for total PFAS (polymeric PFASs included). If total fluorine exceeds 50 (mg F/kg), the manufacturer, importer, or downstream user shall upon request to the enforcement authorities prov
RAC notes that active substances used as biocides products (BP), plant protection products (PPP), and medicinal products (MP) and process chemicals and intermediates used to produce these active substances would be excluded from the ban on manufacturing, use, and placing on the market since they are covered under their own legislation. RAC states that it considers that current legislations on BPs (Regulation (EU) No 528/2012), PPPs (Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009), and MPs (Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, Regulation (EU) 2019/6 and Directive 2001/83/EC) “do not fully address the concern associated with PFAS emissions to the environment and may result in significant continued emissions.” Therefore, RAC supports the Dossier Submitters’ recommendation that if derogations are granted for these uses, measures to minimize emissions from the use of PFAS as active substances in PPPs, BPs, and MPs are incorporated into respective sector-specific regulations.
The RAC opinion notes that the Dossier Submitters propose time-limited derogations for spare parts intended to replace PFAS-containing articles in articles or complex objects. RAC states the importance of the continued supply of spare parts, “especially for energy, electronics and semiconductors, sealing and machinery applications and transport-related uses as pointed out by SEAC.” According to RAC, “since most of the PFAS required in these spare parts are likely to be fluoropolymers, the main emissions occur in the manufacturing stage and at end-of-life, if not disposed appropriately.” RAC also expects the need for spare parts and related emissions to decrease after the restriction enters in force. RAC “can support the derogation for spare parts but emphasises the need for careful control of emissions especially related to the manufacturing of spare parts, and the importance of the safe disposal of the spare parts in the end-of-life.”
RAC proposes a labeling requirement for all PFAS-containing substances, mixtures, and articles placed on the market for derogated uses. RAC states that the label “should apply to all PFAS-containing products independently of whether PFAS are present as the result of impurities from the production process (e.g. use of polymerisation aids) or have been intentionally added.” RAC does not consider a labeling requirement practical for derogated recovered materials and articles containing recovered material, or for reuse of articles already in end-use in the EU, which should be exempted.
RAC addresses sector- and use specific derogations in its sector-specific evaluations. While RAC generally considers a full ban (RO1) to be more effective, RAC “acknowledges that the decision maker may decide to implement sector-/use specific derogations as proposed by the Dossier Submitter[s] and/or SEAC. In such cases, RAC recommends adopting additional risk management measures to ensure associated emissions are minimized.”
In its opinion, RAC acknowledges that the decision maker may decide to implement sector/use specific derogations as proposed by the Dossier Submitters. In that case, RAC proposes additional risk management measures (RMM) to ensure associated emissions are minimized, including:
- Clear consumer labeling, instructions for safe use and disposal, and effective communication along the supply chain; and
- Site-specific PFAS management plans prepared by manufacturers and industrial users of PFAS and PFAS containing mixtures. These plans should identify which PFAS are used, justify their use, and report monitoring results on potential environmental emissions.
Draft SEAC Opinion
According to the draft opinion, SEAC finds that RO1 does not sufficiently balance the associated benefits and costs, considering also the sufficiently strong evidence for low substitution potential for several of the (sub-)uses covered by the restriction proposal. The draft opinion states that “[i]nstead, SEAC considers a ban with use-specific derogations where costs to society outweigh the benefits appropriate to ensure proportionality of the proposed restriction.” SEAC notes that any derogations that it considers justified should be regarded as necessary to ensure that a restriction is proportionate, but not as sufficient on their own. Additional derogations may be required for certain (sub-)uses for a restriction to be proportionate.
For the eight additional sectors for which the Committees did not carry out detailed sector-specific evaluations, SEAC recommends that an evaluation of all uses/applications assessed by the Dossier Submitters within these specific sectors be performed “as soon as possible.” In the interim, SEAC recommends a time-limited derogation for all uses/applications within the scope of these specific sectors until such an evaluation has been performed and an appropriate decision can be made on proportionality.
Overall, SEAC considers a ban with use-specific derogations to be the most appropriate EU-wide measure to address the identified risk while taking into account the proportionality of its socio-economic benefits to its socio-economic costs. SEAC notes that it does not agree or cannot conclude on all the specific elements proposed by the Dossier Submitters. In addition, SEAC states that it cannot conclude on the proportionality of the risk management measures recommended by RAC for derogated uses.
Consultation on Draft SEAC Opinion
As reported in our December 22, 2025, blog item, ECHA published a December 2025 “Consultation on the SEAC draft opinion on restricting per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) — Guidance for respondents.” ECHA designed the guidance to help respondents prepare for the consultation and to understand what information is requested. ECHA has also published a mapping of PFAS uses to help stakeholders prepare and submit relevant information. The consultation is carried out through the EUSurvey tool, and there are separate sector-specific surveys for the 14 sectors evaluated by SEAC and for PFAS manufacturing. To provide information for more than one sector, a separate survey should be filled out for each one. There is also a general survey covering the sections of the SEAC draft opinion that apply to all sectors, including the eight sectors not specifically evaluated by SEAC. Responses are due May 25, 2026.
Next Steps
After the public consultation closes, SEAC will review and analyze the information received and update its draft opinion if relevant. According to ECHA, SEAC is expected to adopt its final opinion by the end of 2026. ECHA will then formally submit the RAC and SEAC opinions to the European Commission (EC). Based on the two final opinions, the EC will propose a restriction for discussion and vote in the REACH Committee, composed of EU member states.
Commentary
The 2023 restriction proposal was incredibly broad, resulting in more than 5,600 comments being submitted. With a greater understanding of how PFAS are used in different sectors, the Dossier Submitters added eight sectors to the 2025 Draft Background Document: printing applications; sealing applications; machinery applications; other medical applications; military applications; explosives; technical textiles; and broader industrial uses. Unfortunately, ECHA concluded that adding these sectors to the RAC and SEAC evaluations would require significant time beyond 2026 for the Committees to complete their review. Stakeholders in these sectors had limited time to raise any issues in the final months of the Committees’ reviews. The consultation on the draft SEAC opinion is in survey form, limiting what information stakeholders in these eight sectors can provide.
Stakeholders in the sectors identified in the 2023 proposal — PFAS manufacturing, TULAC, food contact materials and packaging, metal plating and manufacture of metal products, consumer mixtures and miscellaneous consumer articles, cosmetics, ski wax, applications of fluorinated gases, medical devices, transport, electronics and semiconductors, energy, construction products, lubricants, and petroleum and mining — should carefully review the sector-specific evaluations completed by RAC and SEAC. Comments on the draft SEAC opinion are due May 25, 2026.
The completion of ECHA’s review will mark the beginning of the EC’s process. With a different political landscape than in 2023, it is unclear whether there will be support among EU member states for a broad PFAS restriction. Given how long it has taken ECHA’s Committees to complete their review, several EU member states have chosen to implement their own, more narrow, restrictions on PFAS.
