UK REACH ATRm: from policy concept to draft legislation
On 29 September 2026, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) opened a new technical consultation on the Alternative Transitional Registration model, or ATRm, for UK REACH. The consultation closes on 10 November 2026 and is accompanied by draft legislative provisions showing how UK REACH would be amended to implement the model. This latest technical consultation brings the new transitional registration model closer to implementation, but important details remain open for scrutiny.
Unlike the broader policy consultation undertaken in 2024, Defra’s latest consultation is principally concerned with whether the proposed legal drafting gives effect to the policy position confirmed by the Government in March 2026. Defra is particularly seeking evidence of ambiguities, omissions, procedural gaps and unintended legal or operational consequences before the legislation is finalised.
The broad direction may now be settled, but the detail will determine which registrations qualify for reduced information requirements, what registrants must submit and how the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) may require further information.
Why was the ATRm developed?
Following the UK’s exit from the EU, transitional arrangements allowed chemicals previously registered under EU REACH to remain on the Great Britain market. However, the underlying EU registration data were not transferred to the UK authorities. Businesses were therefore expected to complete their UK transitional registrations by providing the information required under UK REACH.
Industry raised concerns that this could require businesses to purchase access to hazard data already generated and paid for under EU REACH. The potential one-off cost was estimated at approximately £2 billion by 2030, even by Defra’s own estimation. This led to concerns that many substances would be withdrawn from the GB market where the cost of registration could not be commercially justified.
The ATRm was therefore developed to reduce unnecessary duplication and cost while maintaining the protection of human health and the environment and the UK REACH principle of “no data, no market”.
How has the model evolved?
The Government first published its emerging policy direction in November 2023. Its central proposition was that the UK authorities did not need to hold a complete replica of every EU REACH registration dossier. Instead, the Government proposed a more targeted model, drawing on information already available from the EU and other international sources. The original vision combined three main elements:
reducing the hazard information routinely submitted for transitional registrations
collecting more detailed information about chemical uses and exposure in Great Britain
strengthening regulatory powers to obtain further information where necessary.
The first full consultation, which ran from May to July 2024, developed these ideas into a more structured model. Registrants would submit hazard conclusions rather than the full supporting study record normally associated with a standard registration. Additional GB-specific use and exposure information was proposed, while new transitional evaluation powers would allow the HSE to request fuller hazard information where needed. The consultation also proposed revised chemical safety assessment and reporting requirements and new substance groups through which registrants would cooperate and share information and costs.
The Government’s response, published on 30 March 2026 following 241 consultation responses, retained the reduced hazard information approach, transitional evaluation, the revised chemical safety assessment and chemical safety report arrangements and the proposed substance groups.
The most significant change concerned “use and exposure” information. The Government decided not to proceed with the additional standalone requirements proposed in 2024 - industry feedback had highlighted, amongst other things, that the costs this involved would likely exceed the savings from reduced hazard information. The Government agreed that these additional requirements would create unnecessary new burdens for GB businesses.
Proposals concerning reporting, restrictions and animal testing were also removed from the immediate ATRm package and may instead be considered as part of wider UK REACH reform.
The clearest policy shift has therefore already been decided. Reduced upfront hazard information remains central to the ATRm, but the original ambition to accompany it with substantially expanded GB-specific use and exposure reporting has largely fallen away.
What does the latest consultation propose?
The latest consultation is supported by a “Keeling Schedule” showing the proposed amendments within the consolidated text of UK REACH. The changes would principally be made through the transitional provisions in Title 14A, leaving the standard registration requirements in place for non-transitional substances. The draft provisions are not yet law.
Reduced hazard information: Where the eligibility conditions are met, transitional registrants would not routinely need to submit the full collection of study summaries, robust study summaries and testing proposals required for a standard registration. For most substances, the reduced requirements would apply where the substance remains registered under EU REACH as a non-intermediate at the same or a higher tonnage band. A further route would apply to a GB registration in the 1 to 10 tonnes per year band where the substance is registered under EU REACH as a transported isolated intermediate at 1,000 tonnes or more per year. If neither condition is met, the standard information requirements would continue to apply. The reduced submission would include classification and labelling information, guidance on safe use, applicable exposure information and specified conclusions from the chemical safety assessment where one is required.
Classification and chemical safety conclusions: Where there is no mandatory classification under GB CLP, the registrant would need to confirm consistency with the applicable harmonised classification under EU CLP or, where none exists, with the classification submitted by the EU REACH lead registrant and published by ECHA. Any inconsistency, or inability to provide a classification, would need to be explained. Similar consistency requirements would apply to relevant chemical safety conclusions and derived values, including DNELs, DMELs, PNECs and PBT or vPvB assessment results. The ATRm would streamline what must be documented and submitted rather than remove the underlying responsibility to undertake an appropriate assessment. Where the relevant hazard criteria are met, exposure assessment and risk characterisation would still be required.
Other transitional registration routes: The draft provisions would extend the ATRm to new registrations of substances with an existing EU registration entering or re-entering the GB market after the end of the implementation period. This includes new registrations of existing substances (NRES) and registrations following a Downstream User Import Notification (DUIN). Separate provisions also address existing and new registrations for on-site and transported isolated intermediates. These routes would be subject to their own eligibility and information requirements, making it important for each business to identify precisely which transitional provision applies to its registration.
Transitional evaluation: The main counterbalance to the reduced upfront dataset is a new transitional evaluation process under proposed Articles 127Q to 127U. Where the HSE considers additional information necessary to evaluate a substance’s hazards or risks, it would be able to require one or more registrants to provide information not initially submitted under the reduced requirements. This power could extend to information already submitted to ECHA under EU REACH. The process would include a draft decision, a 30-day period for affected registrants to comment, a final decision specifying the information and submission deadline, review of the information provided and a right of appeal. Failure to comply with a final decision would be enforceable.
Substance groups and cost sharing: The draft introduces the concept of a “substance group” through which registrants and potential registrants for the same substance would exchange information and seek to agree classification and labelling. New data-sharing provisions would require registrants to make enquiries within the substance group and make every effort to agree access to information and the allocation of costs on a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory basis. Registrants would only be expected to contribute towards information required for their own registration or a relevant evaluation decision. Where necessary information did not exist or could not be accessed, the relevant registrants would be expected to generate it collectively. For old hands, these arrangements bear striking resemblance to the former EU REACH SIEF system.
Is this now only about implementation?
Pretty much, yes. The consultation states that the general policy approach was confirmed in March 2026. Its principal purpose is to test whether the legal text accurately implements that policy, rather than reopening the underlying model from first principles.
However, describing it as merely a drafting exercise would understate its significance. The proposed legislation now provides important detail on eligibility, classification comparators, consistency statements, joint submissions, substance group responsibilities, evaluation procedures and cost allocation.
These details may materially affect legal obligations and commercial outcomes. An ambiguity concerning eligibility, data ownership, cost sharing or responsibility for responding to an evaluation decision could have significant consequences for individual registrants and substance groups.
The consultation should therefore be treated as an opportunity to test whether the model will work in practice, not simply as a final proofreading exercise.
An unresolved question over rights to use EU data
One important issue does not appear to have been fully resolved. The ATRm requires registrants to compare certain classifications, DNELs, DMELs, PNECs and other assessment conclusions with information submitted under EU REACH and published by ECHA.
However, information being publicly accessible does not necessarily mean that it may be used for registration purposes.
ECHA’s own legal notice warns that material on its website may remain protected by third-party rights and states specifically that published study summaries and robust study summaries may be used for registration only where the potential registrant legitimately possesses the corresponding full study report or has permission to refer to it. Defra has previously acknowledged respondents’ concerns about intellectual property rights, including the use of published DNELs and PNECs without purchasing data access or a copyright licence, but its March 2026 response did not provide a definitive answer.
The ATRm may reduce the need to acquire complete EU data packages, but registrants will still need to distinguish carefully between using ECHA information as a comparator, independently deriving the same conclusions and relying upon protected data to fulfil a regulatory requirement.
When will the changes take effect?
The consultation doesn’t specify a commencement date.
Following the consultation, the Government intends to publish a summary of responses and a government response and, subject to the outcome, finalise the Statutory Instrument that will give effect to the changes that need to be made to UK REACH.
The existing UK REACH transitional submission deadlines are 27 October 2029, 27 October 2030 and 27 October 2031, depending on tonnage and hazard profile. However, the Government has not yet committed to a specific date for the ATRm legislation to come into force.
What should businesses do now?
Businesses with grandfathered registrations, DUINs or potential NRES registrations should consider:
whether their registrations appear eligible for the reduced requirements
whether the corresponding EU registrations remain active at the necessary tonnage bands
how their classifications and chemical safety conclusions compare with the relevant EU information
how existing lead registrant and data-sharing structures may need to adapt
what costs or data-access issues could arise if the HSE requests additional information
whether the draft provisions create ambiguities or unintended consequences that should be raised during the consultation.
The consultation is open until 10 November 2026.
From policy to operability
The ATRm has changed significantly since the original policy direction was published in 2023. Its defining feature remains a reduction in the hazard information routinely submitted by transitional registrants. However, the proposed expansion of GB-specific use and exposure reporting has been dropped, while the roles of consistency statements, substance groups and targeted regulatory information requests have become clearer.
For many businesses, the model should reduce the need to purchase or recreate complete EU registration datasets simply to maintain access to the GB market. That does not mean transitional registration will become a light-touch administrative exercise. Registrants will still need to prepare and submit registrations, which will involve understanding and supporting their hazard and risk conclusions, cooperating with other registrants and being prepared to respond if the HSE exercises its transitional evaluation powers.
The latest consultation therefore marks the shift from policy to operability. The broad destination is now clear. The remaining question is whether the proposed legal machinery will work without creating gaps, uncertainty or avoidable disputes.
Further information: Defra consultation: https://consultations.defra.gov.uk/technical-consultation-on-the-alternative-transitional-registration-atrm-for-uk-reach