ATLANTA -- Companies that currently import into the EU are implicitly declaring RoHS compliance. This was the message conveyed by Steve Andrews, head of the eco-design and product registration unit with the UK Department of Trade and Industry. European countries are taking self-declarations on good faith; there is no visible mandate, according to Andrews.

Andrews and others spoke on RoHS issues last week in a special Webcast on due diligence and environmental compliance. The presentation focused on laws in place in the EU and pending in China.

The EU RoHS Directive lists compliance and enforcement for six classes of substances, including lead, mercury, hexavalent chromium, cadmium, polybrominated biphenyls and polybrominated diphenyl ethers.

In Andrews’ mind, the six-page rule boils down to this: “six pages, but only one line is important.” The line states that new equipment shall not contain more than the maximum specified concentrations of these toxic substances as of July 1, 2006.

According to Andrews, if a company declares compliance, they need to be able to demonstrate “reasonable steps” to comply if challenged by a judge in a court of law.

The National Weights and Measures Laboratory handles UK enforcement. NWML was appointed in July 2005 and has adopted a collaborative approach. Its method contains the following steps: self-declaration by producer; risk matrix; information request by authorities; producer’s response (within 28 days); assessment of response, and finally, enforcement action. The last step, Andrews says, “is not a regular event.” If they get to this point, they “consider it a failure of the system.”

The final draft manual of decision will contain the scope of the directive. Andrews looks for that decision to be available late this year or in early 2007.

Whereas the EU does not currently legislate standards on RoHS reporting, China will require three types of labeling for electronic and information products (EIPs) intended for its market: indicating environment-friendly use period (the number of years that toxic substances will not leak or mutate from the time of manufacture); creating a chart (in Chinese) of the six substances, marking an “X” if a substance is present and an “O” if not, and labeling for packaging materials (more information to come).

Speaking on China’s RoHS issues, Jean Philippe Brisson of Allen & Overy’s Global Environmental Law Group stressed that only those EIPs listed in an as-yet unavailable Chinese catalog will be subject to bans. The catalog will list products containing hazardous substances, the purpose of which is to exempt products covered by the ban. According to Brisson, the first draft is likely to be available early next year.

The differences in approaches between the EU and China can be exemplified by Circular 446, 2006, which states, according to Brisson, that to export from China into the EU, a company needs an export license showing compliance with EU regulations. However, the EU does not require this to be able to import into an EU country; this is a Chinese requirement only.

The biggest difference between China and EU RoHS is CCC Certification, Brisson says. As part of this certification, government-run Chinese labs will do compulsory testing. These labs are already set up, but Brisson questions, “What will the costs be? Will these labs be able to respond quickly enough?” There will also be a testing standard in China, but at this time, details are still pending.

Sanctions for noncompliance in China at varying levels will be fines, withdrawal of licenses, shutting down of production, and finally, the possibility of criminal liability.

Throughout the Webcast, speakers polled the audience to ascertain where companies stand on compliance. Asked to characterize their company’s knowledge and understanding of environmental regulations and enforcement policies in the regions they sell, 56.6% of audience members were somewhat confident, while 26.5% were very confident.

Per the poll, participants indicated their approaches to environmental compliance included collecting compliance information (96.6%), seeking legal advice (61.1%), rigorous tracking of environmental regulations (58.8%), and verification such as analysis and testing (51.1%).

According to another audience poll, readiness for China RoHS by participants’ companies varied. Only 3.2% felt they were well prepared, while 24.1% were “actively prepared.” A portion – 39.5% – are monitoring regulations, but haven’t taken specific steps. Significantly, 18.6% have few details and 14.2% “just don’t know.” Many will have much work to do before the first China RoHS deadline: March 1, 2007.

In summation, DTI's Andrews suggested the industry is “looking for a level playing field,” but there is no guarantee to the same levels of enforcement.