Problems relating to Trade and Investment on EU
22. Environmental pollution and waste disposal |
|||
Issue |
Issue details |
Requests |
Reference |
| (1) The REACH and CLP Regulations and the RoHS Directive | - On Duty to Communicate Information on Substances in Articles, the Regulation requires information on the substance within 6-months of the publication of the target substance, whose requirement is difficult to satisfy not only within the EU Member States but also fundamentally externally. In Japan, due to "Act against Delay in Payment of Subcontract Proceeds, Etc. to Subcontractors", which restricts excessive requirement, collecting information is all the more difficult. - REACH Regulation is not only nebulous in interpretation but also complex. It takes a lot of workload and cost for its observance, particularly in the business sector, taking the form of trade firms. There are cases where external manufacturers must abandon the project for developing new chemical compounds for distribution in the EU market, due to the REACH Regulation, much to the detriment of the EU users' interest.As to CLP Regulation, purportedly aligning to GHS (Global Harmonisation System (http://www.env.go.jp/chemi/ghs/index.html )), nevertheless, it introduces EU's own unique classification standard, having full of confusions. In practical application, it contains problems galore. It requires integration compatible with GHS in its entirety. As it stands, changes and amendments are frequent in CLP Regulation, demanding much time-consuming workload each time for compliance. - On review of RoHS Exemptions, Japanese industries have spared no effort in collaborating with EU. However, RoHS Exemptions not only concern numerous constituent parts of a product, the exempted items get changed or exempted with passage of time. This makes evidential preparation excessively burdensome on the CE Marking that accompanies introduction of RoHS II. While its lofty objective for induction of the Alternative Technological Development is indeed highly valuable, adoption one after another of Exemption Items not previously sought by the industries goes counter to this objective, in the absence of consistency. - A Firm is hard put to understand the new EU move toward Addition of Substances under RoHS. To begin with, it distorts the movement toward the Risk-Based Control of Chemical Substances under REACH for EU to add substances (such as Phthalate, Tetra Bromo Bisphenol A, etc.) that do not reflect the scientific assessment restricted only to Electric and Electronic Products. The Firm looks forward to the successful results of EU's Review on the Scope of REACH. On the other hand, the fact remains that RoHS now serves as Model Code on Environmental Issues for the rest of the world. The Firm further requests EU to realise the fallacy of possibly misleading the global environmental burden that results from the restrictions upon substances without underlining by the scientific assessment. - It is no easy matter to adjust the requisite procedures for each member state of EU with individually unique legislation / interpretation / employment different to each other. For example, Norway jumped the gun by enforcing 'ban' on use of PFOA (Perflurooctanoic acid) ahead of EU. - The differences in the judgement basis of content/non-content between RoHS Directive and REACH Regulation require different managements between them. There are some cases that substance/utility exempted under RoHS are subject to information transmission requirement under REACH. The necessity has arisen for an individually separate management over the contents in substance via its supply chain. As it stands, it requires a separate control of the contents information. These dual legislative provisions have caused confusions in the industry. - As regards REACH, disunity exists among the EU member states in the denominator calculation for the compound chemical substance, concentration calculation rate, etc. |
- It is requested that in implementing the laws and regulations, ECHA considers the actual conditions that enterprises confront in importing products externally. - In order to alleviate the burden upon suppliers for research on the contained substance, it is requested that ECHA considers extension of the due submission date to ECHA, also on information of the Target Substance under Article 33 of REACH Regulation. - It is noted that there have been cases where ECHA adopts inclusion in the Candidate List a substance, previously not classified under CLP Regulation, more or less simultaneously with the change in the classification of the substance. It is requested that ECHA bears in mind that chemical contents information on the substance and its mixtures first gets transmitted to the supply chains via Safety Data Sheets (SDS). In other words, ECHA should propose inclusion into the Candidate List under the CLP Regulation at a time when the information dissemination via SDS, etc. can be expected (in about 2-years). - It is requested that EU unitises the contents of REACH Regulation with those of the United Nations Globally Harmonised System (GHS). - It is requested that EU promulgates jointly with industrial groups the compliance guidance on the Amended RoHS Directive (RoHS II). - It is further requested that EU secures an adequate validity term and takes complementary measures separately by means such as FAQ to ensure the practical effectiveness of the measures. - It is requested that the EU Member States build up the common framework based on the objective scientific knowledge. - Where existing legislation applies (on RoHS Exemption), it is requested that EU avoids dual application with different contents. - It is requested that REACH takes step to harmonise the proposed draft regulation in accordance with the REACH process. (EU Court of Justice Decision is expected in Spring 2015.) |
- Environmental Legislation such as WEEE, RoHS, REACH, etc. - Directive EC 1907/2006 |
| (2) Application of RoHS Directive, etc. to Maintenance Parts for Production Equipment, etc. | - Under Energy-related Products (ErP) Directive (Directive 2009/125/EC), and Amended RoHS Directive (Directive 2011/65/EU), the requirements are difficult to comprehend. While production equipment, etc. are excluded from the subject goods, in certain cases, compliance with the respective Directives is necessary on each individual part (commercial computer, monitor, etc) comprising the equipment. | - It is requested that each EU Member State takes steps to exclude from the subject goods individual parts for the production equipment, etc. when shipped as maintenance parts. | |
| (3) Authorised Representative | - WEEE recast directive requires designation of an authorised representative acting on behalf of the manufacturer in discharging the responsibility under the directive, when selling EEE in other member states. | - It is requested that WEEE recast directive is further amended to the effect that designation of a natural person suffices for performance of obligations under the directives, where the applicant has no branch operation. | - WEEE Directive 2012/19/EC article 3 (f)(iv) |
| (4) Differences in Energy Saving Regulation and Labeling System between Japan and EU | - The differences between nations heavily burden business in energy efficiency regulation and labeling system on internationally distributed products such as information communication technology (ICT) products. The additional cost required raises product prices and increases burden upon consumers. | - It is requested that GOJ and EU harmonise at least the methods for test and use, because both share the same purpose for saving energy in the product use. | - International ENERGY STAR Program, IEC/TC108, IEC/TC100, IEC/TC113, etc. |
| (5) Difficulty in Saving Resources on IT Products | - While printer products have been reduced in size, and energy efficiency has made a fair progress, certain EU Member States require their users' manual printed on paper (in their own languages), barring the efforts to reduce the use of print sheet. Their requirement defeats the purpose for achievement of energy efficiency. | - It is requested that each Member State promotes the use of electronic information, at least for IT products. | - Consumer Protection Directives - Energy Efficiency Directive |
| (6) Original Recycle Mark (Batteries) | - Legislative provisions have been promulgated in each country and each region throughout for effective use of natural resources and prevention of environmental pollution. It is the same with Batteries. GOT compels provision of the various markings on the Battery itself, and its User's Manual correctly without any mistakes, the administration of which heavily burdens the manufacturers. |
- It is requested that Governments will jointly work toward unification of the Recycle Marking Requirement worldwide. | |
| (7) Nanomaterial Control | - The likelihood of legislative introduction, without sufficient discussion on the Definition and the toxic quality of "nanomaterials" among the stakeholders, is a matter of concern. | - If EU is to implement the legislation on control of nanomaterials, it is requested that EU confirms: -- such control is justifiable based on the objective scientific knowledge, and -- such control is kept to a minimum level absolutely necessary, lest it negatively affects the business activity of enterprises. |
- The European Commission Recommendation on the Definition of Nanomaterial (2011/696/EU) |
| (8) Punitive Provisions for CO2 Emission Control on Vehicles | - Since 2012, EU has started CO2 Emission Control, which sets the Basic Value, which is based not in the Absolute Value of CO2 Emission but in the Relative Value between the CO2 Emission and the Vehicle Weight. | - It is requested that EU changes the control based on the absolute value of CO2 emissions that assures a fair competitive environment, as the going control is based in favour of the EU Domestic Manufacturers. | |
| (9) Disunity in Environmental Regulations within the EU Member States | - Implementation of Law among the Member States requires unitisation. The Domestic Laws of each Member State based on EU Regulations, Article 95 of Treaty of Nice, and Article 11495 of Treaty of Lisbon ought to be the same. However, in practice, they do not necessarily agree in each Member State as exemplified in the Article Argument on REACH and the Phthalate Ban in Denmark this time. This kind of nebulous Law Administration is burdensome upon the EU enterprises. To the Japanese enterprises, it means much heavier burden, as they tend to adopt more rigorous interpretation of such laws. | - It is requested that EU: -- better defines the scope of each legislation, and -- causes Member States / Industrial Sectors to jointly prepare and own / update Q&A on RoHS, Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), etc. |
- Regulations by Member States or EU on Product Safety, EMI Radiation, Consumer Protection, Recycle, and Ergonomics - The Local Fire Defense Ordinances |
| (10) Carbon Footprint Scheme | - For the proper implementation of the carbon footprint scheme, it is necessary to establish reasonable means of measurements. - The Standards and the methods are ambiguous to determine the EU environmental footprint. |
- It is requested that GOJ and EU move toward international harmonisation of the carbon footprint scheme. - It is preferable that EU establishes the internationally harmonised standards and methods by product categories. |
|
<<BACK |