The European Union (EU) and the United States share the largest two-way trade and investment relationship in the world. The U.S. trade deficit with the European Union was $82.4 billion in 2002, an increase of $21.1 billion from 2001. U.S. goods exports in 2002 were $143.7 billion, down 9.5 percent from the previous year. Corresponding U.S. imports from the European Union were $226.1 billion, up 2.8 percent.

As traditional trade barriers affecting transatlantic trade and investment have declined in recent years, specific trade obstacles arising from unnecessary divergences of U.S. and EU regulations and the lack of transparency in the EU rulemaking and standardization processes have loomed relatively larger in importance. While U.S. and EU regulatory authorities often share similar regulatory objectives, differences in our respective regulatory policies and procedures can have significant implications for U.S. trade interests. Compliance with unnecessarily divergent regulations and related standards for products sold in both markets imposes additional costs on U.S. companies (e.g., product redesign, duplicative testing) and increases time required to bring a product to market. Such compliance costs are compounded by the inadequate transparency of the EU rulemaking system and a lack of meaningful opportunity for non-EU stakeholders to provide input on draft EU regulations and standardization activities. To address these systemic concerns, the United States continues to promote greater U.S.-EU regulatory cooperation and enhanced transparency in the EU regulatory system.

Standardization

Given the large volume of U.S.-EU trade, EU standardization work in regulated market segments is of considerable importance to U.S. exporters. Although there has been some progress with respect to the EU's implementation of legislation, a number of problems related to this evolving EU-wide legislative environment continue to impede U.S. exports. These include: delays in the development of EU standards; delays in the drafting of harmonized legislation; inconsistent application and interpretation by EU Member States of legislation; overlap among Directives dealing with specific product areas; gray areas between the scope of various Directives; and, in some cases, reliance on design-based, rather than performance-based, standards. In addition, there are concerns related to the respective procedures, responsibilities (e.g., accountability, redress) and transparency in both the Commission and the European standards bodies that require careful monitoring and more frequent advocacy efforts. The following two examples illustrate the type of standards-related problems affecting U.S. exporters.

Gas Connector Hose Standard

The European Standardization organization, CEN, is in the process of drafting a standard for gas connector hoses, which is likely to exclude a U.S. product from the market because of design specifications. The U.S. manufacturer has experienced considerable difficulties in gaining access to the standardization process, and has been unsuccessful in countering assertions by the CEN Technical Committee that only fixed/welded connections can be considered safe methods for gas hose connectors. This almost ten-year-old case represents the most long-standing example of the market access barriers that European standards can create. Both U.S. industry and the U.S. Government have argued in favor of performance-based standards for years, and the U.S. Government has persistently raised this case with national CEN members and Commission officials to press for more transparency and performance criteria in the CEN standardization process.

Pressure Equipment Directive:

In May 2002, the EU Pressure Equipment Directive (PED) entered into force, imposing new requirements on manufacturers of such equipment. Previously, pressure equipment manufacturers could demonstrate conformity based on standards for material specifications, including the U.S. ASME Code. Manufacturers using the ASME Code are now uncertain about continued EU market access, as the European standards incorporate material specifications slightly different from those found in the ASME Code. In the absence of a full set of harmonized EU standards (only one has been approved to date), the PED permits manufacturers to file for an EAM (European Approval of Materials); however, no requests for EAMs have been approved so far. Another option, the Particular Material Appraisal (PMA), is not yet a functioning alternative, as the administrative procedure still needs to be established. In light of these factors, U.S. manufacturers question the need for the re-testing of products, and seek the "grandfathering" of existing materials.

Biotechnology

The EU’s four and a half year de facto moratorium on the approval of new products of modern biotechnology has hindered U.S. exports of corn and threatens exports of soya. Food processors and exporters are either reformulating or seeking non-bioengineered sources, and the likelihood of new mandatory traceability and labeling requirements is causing enormous uncertainty in the food, feed, and seed sectors. Problems exist for both approved products and products currently seeking approval. Biotechnology continues to be more of a political than a scientific issue in Europe and prospects for improvement remain dim. With some minor exceptions, no biotechnology products have been approved since 1998. Several products have been under review for more than six years, as compared with an average 6-9 month process in Canada, Japan, and the United States. U.S. exports of corn to Spain and Portugal, the most significant EU importers, have almost stopped. Several Member States including Austria, Luxembourg and Italy have imposed marketing bans on some biotechnology products despite existing EU approvals. The European Commission has not taken steps to overturn the bans, despite the fact that the EU’s Scientific Committee has found no justification for the bans. Portugal and Germany have suspended approvals for planting certain biotechnology products. Directive 01/18, governing approval of biotechnology products, including seeds and grains, for environmental release and commercialization was implemented in October 2002. However, EU Member States have refused to lift the approvals moratorium despite the new, more stringent legislation and say they are waiting for proposed traceability and labeling rules to come into force.

In July 2001, the European Commission submitted for approval by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament two proposals for new rules governing traceability and labeling and, biotechnology food and feed authorizations. The proposals include mandatory traceability and labeling requirements for all biotechnology products and downstream products that would be onerous and expensive for producers and foreign suppliers to meet. As of December 2002, the European Council had reached a political agreement on the proposed food and feed and traceability and labeling directives. The proposed directives must still go through the Parliament before final adoption by the Council. If adopted, the proposals will not come into force for at least six months. Austria: Austria has imposed a marketing ban on some biotechnology products despite existing EU approvals. Under current Austrian rules, unapproved biotechnology events must not be detected in conventional seeds ("zero tolerance"), but EU-approved events may be present in conventional and organic seeds up to 0.1 percent. This standard is more restrictive than what is commonly accepted practice in the EU.

France: There are six bioengineered products approved for sale in France (Bt 176 corn, Bt 11 corn, MON 810 corn, T25 corn, Roundup Ready soybeans, and ITB-1000-0X tobacco). However, no bioengineered crops are grown in France other than for research purposes. On July 4, 2002, the French Ministry of Agriculture approved eight applications for open-field testing of bioengineered crops, but none of them could be planted in 2002. The number of bioengineered test plots, mainly corn, is 41.

Greece: Recently, Greece has not been responsive to applications to introduce bioengineered seeds for field tests, despite support for such tests by Greek farmers and Greece’s agricultural science community. 

Italy: There are varying positions on agricultural biotechnology among Italy’s Ministries of Health, Agriculture, and Environment. The Ministry of Agriculture is trying to minimize the risk of adventitious presence contamination by imposing extremely rigorous thresholds for seed purity, which threaten U.S. exports of conventional corn and soybean seed. The stated objective of the Ministry of Agriculture is to disallow any bioengineered presence in seeds. In the case of soybeans used for animal feed, the Ministry of Agriculture tacitly allows biotechnology, since it is unable to segregate in storage or in processing the locally produced nonbioengineered soybeans from those of imported origins. Italy has not rescinded its ban on four EU-approved bioengineered corn varieties (BT11, MON 810, MON 809 and T25) which was enacted by the previous government.

Ban on Beef from Cattle Treated with Growth Promoting Hormones

For more than fourteen years, the EU has banned imports of beef from cattle raised with hormonal growth promoters. The United States launched a formal WTO dispute settlement procedure in May 1996 challenging the EU ban. The WTO ruled that the EU's ban is inconsistent with the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures because it is imposed without a risk assessment based on scientific evidence of health risks, and in 1999 the WTO authorized the United States to impose sanctions on EU products with an annual trade value of $116.8 million. In December 2002, the EU permanently banned the use of estradiol-17-ß, a growth promoter widely used in the United States and which has been determined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to pose no health risk to consumers. The EU also presented a number of studies that analyzed the use of hormones in beef production, though none of these studies presented any new evidence to support the EU’s hormone ban. The United States and the EU continue to explore possible resolutions to this dispute.

Poultry Regulations

U.S. poultry exports to the EU have been banned since April 1, 1997 because U.S. poultry producers currently use washes of lowconcentration chlorine as an antimicrobial treatment (AMT) to reduce the level of pathogens in poultry meat production and meet strict U.S. safety standards, a practice not permitted by the EU sanitary regime. In October 1998, the EU published a study on AMTs recommending that such treatments could be used as part of an overall strategy for pathogen control throughout the production chain. Although some forms of treatment such as tri-sodium phosphate (TSP) and lactic acid were deemed more acceptable, the use of chlorinated water was rejected by the study. In 2002, the United States continued to work with the EU to address differences between U.S. and EU food safety rules for poultry with a view toward restoring U.S. poultry exports to the EU and preserving existing markets for U.S. poultry in Central and East European countries that are moving to adopt EU standards in this area. As part of this effort, the United States has provided the European Commission with four detailed scientific reports on proposed compounds for EU approval as alternative AMTs. Additionally, the United States has provided a point-by-point response to a 1997 EU audit of U.S. poultry meat production facilities and detailed information regarding the U.S. residue control program and the EU’s additional residue testing program. Both sides have committed to finding an appropriate resolution by the June 2003 U.S.-EU Summit.

France: According to a 1961 decree of the Ministry of Agriculture, poultry originating from countries which allow the use of compounds incorporating arsenic in poultry feed, cannot enter France for human use. As the United States does not ban these products, this decree creates a de facto ban on U.S. poultry meat for human consumption in France.

Animal By-Products Legislation

In October 2002, the European Commission approved legislation (1774/2002) that requires that animal by-products not intended for human consumption, including blood products, hides, and pet food, be derived from the carcasses of animals deemed fit for human consumption. In February 2001, the U .S. had commented on this regulation when it was first notified to the WTO by the European Union as a proposal. The U.S. concerns notified to the WTO included the lack of an adequate basis to identify a hazard, no proper assessment of risk, and no scientific justification of the measures proposed to mitigate the risk. Unfortunately, the final regulation that was approved was even more rigid and sweeping than the one originally notified. In addition, many of the details are still unclear or are being worked out internally despite a May 2003 implementation date. In early February 2003, USDA Secretary Veneman sent a letter to EU Commissioner Byrne stating that Regulation 1774/2002 creates onerous and scientifically unjustified new restrictions on U.S. exports of hides, skins, gel bones, pet food, gelatin, and other products. The Secretary also noted a lack of transparency in the regulations. The Secretary asked for a delay in the implementation of the regulation until these issues can be addressed; as of mid-March, the EU has not yet responded. The proposed legislation was initially developed in response to the BSE crisis but has been broadened to address several additional animal and public health issues. The Animal Waste Directive replaces Directive 90/667/EEC on the disposal and processing of animal waste and amends Directive 90/425/EEC. This regulation, as currently written, will negatively impact U.S. exports of animal by-products not intended for human consumption to the European Union, valued at $525 million. The legislation prohibits the use of any rendered protein which was obtained from animal carcasses that were unfit for human consumption as an animal feed ingredient or for pet food. For example, fallen stock will not be permitted in feed.

Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSE) Regulations

Under a 1997 directive (Directive 97/534/EC), the EU prohibited the use of so-called Specified Risk Materials (SRM’s). The goal of the ban was to avoid health risks related to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), which is linked to a new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans. The ban prohibited the use of SRMs (defined as the skull, tonsils, ileum and spinal cord of cattle, sheep and goats aged more than one year, and the spleens of sheep and goats) in any products sold in the EU. In September 1999, this directive was implemented with regard to SRMs in medical products for human use. Thus far, it appears U.S. companies have successfully complied with this element of the SRM ban. In June 2000 a Commission Decision was adopted, repealing the previous Commission Decision, but setting new requirements for handling SRMs. This new measure limited the scope of the ban to food, feed and fertilizer and required slaughterhouses and authorized meat cutting and processing plants in all EU Member States, regardless of whether BSE exists in a particular country, to remove the SRMs mentioned above. The measure became effective October 1, 2000 for all EU Member States. Initially the ban did not apply to third countries. However in March 2001, the EU published the results of their geographical BSE risk (GBR) assessment of third countries exporting food, feed or fertilizer products to the EU. In order to establish their risk status, Commission recommendation 98/477 invited third countries and Member States to submit a complete dossier on their epidemiological status with respect to BSE. On the basis of the U.S. dossier, the Scientific Steering Committee (SSC) concluded that it is still unlikely, but cannot be excluded, that BSE is present in the United States. This put the United States in category II of GBR (Geographical BSE Risk). In late May 2001, the European Commission adopted a Regulation, which is eventually intended to supersede all existing TSE legislation. Among other things, it establishes criteria to classify the BSE status of Member States and third countries into one of five classification categories. Certain requirements, including removal of SRM’s, would then be applied to a country depending on the classification. Under the current Regulation of transitional measures passed in July 2001, only countries recognized as provisionally BSE-free (GBR-1) are not required to remove SRM's in order to export to the EU. The United States, as a GBR category II country, is required to remove SRM's and mechanically-recovered meat (MRM) from animal products exported to the EU, causing significant disruption for U.S. exporters. Under the EU’s new classification procedures, the United States fully expects to be placed a category where removal of SRM's would not be required. In July 2002, the Standing Committee on Animal Health and the Food Chain approved the lifting of restrictions on the trade of embryos and ova. This decision followed the Scientific Steering Committee's opinion on the safety of bovine embryos.

France: A Ministerial order of 12 April 2002 relating to the ban on importing certain ruminant tissue for human consumption due to Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSEs) requires a certificate for import into France of animal products, stating compliance with EU regulation 999/2001 modified by regulation 270/2002/EEC. For products derived from ovine, caprine, and bovine that are not born, bred and slaughtered in the BSE-free countries listed in the regulation, a French certificate including a longer list of specified risk materials (SRMs) must be added to the EU certificate.

Gelatin Regulation

In October 1999, the EU adopted a Directive that established requirements, effective June 1, 2000, for manufacturing facilities producing gelatin for human consumption. Under the directive, manufacturing facilities are required to meet certain procedures for authorization and registration, inspection and hygiene, as well as control measures. Also covered are the raw materials permitted and the treatments they must undergo before being used in the manufacture of gelatin. The EU has stated that the U.S. regulations for gelatin are equivalent under the U.S.-EU Veterinary Equivalency Agreement, except for residue testing and inspection of tanneries. Therefore, the United States has, on numerous occasions, proposed wording on the health certificate to address those requirements that are not deemed equivalent. The EU has continually rejected the U.S. proposed language, erecting new barriers by insisting on different language on the health certificate.The result has been a ban on U.S. exports since June 2000. The U.S. provided the EU with proposed new language for the health certificate in December 2002 and is waiting for a response.

Triple Superphosphate Fertilizer

EU legislation (EC Directive 76/116) requires Triple Superphosphate (TSP) – a phosphatebased fertilizer used to enhance soil fertility and to increase crop yields – to meet a standard of 93 percent water solubility in order to be marketed as "EC-Type" fertilizer. Scientific studies done to date on typical crops cultivated in Europe show that water solubility rates of 90 percent or higher are not necessary to gain the agronomic benefits associated with adding TSP to the soil. W hile in theory, TSP of any origin can be imported and sold in the EU, the inability to market TSP with less than 93 percent water solubility as "EC-Type" restricts its marketability, depresses its price, and has the effect of unfairly discriminating against countries that cannot meet the 93 percent water solubility requirement. EU imports of "non-ECType" TSP have been virtually eliminated. The U.S. fertilizer industry, which accounts for 20 percent of total world TSP exports, has been working with the European Commission and European industry to amend the water solubility requirements to reflect current scientific and agronomic studies. The United States continues to seek from the European Commission a justification for the 93 percent standard in light of scientific evidence and trade rules.

Emerging Concerns

In addition to the foregoing current trade barriers arising from EU policies regarding standards, testing, labeling, and certification, the United States has serious concerns about the ongoing development of new regulations that would appear to have serious negative consequences for U .S. exporters in the future. The United States is actively engaging the European Union with respect to the issues outlined below.

Chemicals: The European Commission is now working on a massive overhaul of existing EU policy for chemicals regulation. In its February 2001 White Paper on a "Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy," the Commission proposed a new, EU-wide regulatory framework called "REACH" (Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals) applicable to all existing and new chemicals. Under this proposed system, chemical companies and downstream users would be responsible for testing chemicals, carrying out risk assessments, and making this information available to a central database run by the European Chemicals Bureau. At this point, it is not clear how polymers, intermediate chemicals, and the end product are to be treated. Virtually every industrial sector, from automobiles to textiles, could be impacted by the new policy. While the United States fully supports the EU’s objectives to protect human health and the environment and acknowledges the need for more information on chemicals, there are concerns that the new policy could have significant adverse trade implications for U.S. products. The EU’s White Paper outlines what appears to be a costly, burdensome, and complex regulatory system, which could prove unworkable in its implementation. U.S. industry has warned that the system could present obstacles to trade and innovation, possibly distorting global markets for thousands of products. Industry concerns have also focused on possible bans for some chemicals based on the EU’s "precautionary principle." The U.S. chemical industry estimates that the new policy could cost $8 billion for testing and evaluation of chemicals. The European Council and Parliament have endorsed the Commission’s White Paper. The Commission is currently drafting formal legislative proposals, which it expects to issue in June 2003. The U.S. Government has promoted early cooperative engagement with the EU. It has urged the European Commission to give serious consideration to the constructive input from the U.S. Government and from other stakeholders. The U.S. Government continues to underscore the importance of transparency, openness, and accountability throughout the regulatory process as this will contribute to balanced, more effective regulation in the end.

Cosmetics and Animal Testing: In November 2002, the EU approved several amendments to Council Directive 76/768/EEC governing the manufacture and sale of cosmetic products in the European Union. One of the amendments of particular concern to the U. S. government is the ban on the sale in the EU of cosmetics tested on animals. This ban will take effect as soon as there is a validated alternative to animal testing for the cosmetic product/ingredient and, in any event, not later than 2009 for 11 of 14 tests and not later than 2013 for three of 14 tests. This ban could conflict with FDA rules requiring animal testing of certain cosmetics (e.g., anti-dandruff shampoos, sunscreens, fluoride toothpaste) that are classified in the United States as over-the-counter (OTC) drugs for purposes of establishing product safety. The U.S. Government has expressed concern that the entry into force of the ban could restrict transatlantic trade as certain U .S. products tested on animals could be prohibited from sale in the EU, while EU products not tested on animals could be prohibited for sale in the United States. To minimize trade disruption, the U.S. Government and European Commission have agreed to pursue a project on harmonized alternative (non-animal) testing methods. The project will involve cooperation between the U.S. interagency expert group (ICCVAM) and the EU export group (ECVAM). The aim will be to develop mutually acceptable alternatives to animal testing that would then be submitted to the OECD for international validation. This should result in internationally validated alternatives, which FDA could accept for most cosmetics. However, this would not resolve the trade issues regarding cosmetics classified as OTC drugs, since U.S. law requires animal testing to prove the safety of these products. 

Waste Management: In June 2000, the European Commission issued proposals for a Directive focusing on the "take back" and recycling of discarded equipment (known as Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment or "WEEE"), and a second Directive addressing restrictions on the use of certain substances in electrical and electronic equipment, such as lead, mercury, cadmium, and certain flame retardants (known as Restrictions on the Use of Hazardous Substances or "RoHS"). Under the Conciliation Committee between the European Parliament and the Council, a "common position" on both directives was reached on October 11, 2002. Under this compromise, producers will be held individually responsible for the waste arising from their new products. The policy is intended to create an incentive for companies to design more environment-friendly products, and will make each manufacturer legally and financially responsible for the recycling of the products that it puts onto t he market. The United States supports the directives’ objectives to reduce waste and the environmental impact of discarded products. However, the United States has expressed concerns that the directives lacked transparency in their development and would adversely affect trade in products where viable alternatives may not exist. The directives will, in part, ban certain materials as of July 1, 2006 (mercury, lead, cadmium, hexavalent chromium and the brominated flame retardants PBDE and PBB) and impose comprehensive collection and recycling requirements for end-of-life equipment on a retroactive basis. Responding to concerns about the basis for the substance bans, the Commission has pledged to conduct risk assessments before 2004.

On a related issue, the Commission continues to work on a proposal for a Directive on Batteries that would, in part, ban the sale of nickelcadmium batteries and products powered by such batteries. The U.S. Government has urged the Commission to conduct a proper risk assessment and seriously consider the battery industries’ proposed comprehensive collection and recycling of batteries as an alternative to a ban. In early 2003, the Commission initiated an "extended impact assessment" on its proposed batteries directive. The United States continues to closely monitor these proposals as they proceed through the EU legislative process to ensure that they will not unreasonably restrict trade. Electrical and Electronic End Use Equipment (EUE): In fall 2002, the European Commission issued a new draft Directive referred to as "EuE" (end-user equipment), which combines the essence of earlier proposals on product design of electrical and electronic equipment to minimize environmental harm, and energy efficiency. The stated objective of the new draft is to minimize harmful effects on the environment. It would be issued as a "new approach" Directive, consisting of a framework and "implementing measures" according to product groups. A formal proposal is expected in 2003. As with its precursors industry is most concerned about the  need for product life cycle analysis, fearing adverse impacts on design flexibility, new product development and introduction, and increased administrative burdens.

Acceleration of the Phase-outs of Ozonedepleting Substances and Greenhouse Gases: In June 2000, the EU adopted Regulation 2037/2000, a new Regulation for phasing-out all ozone depleting substances in the EU. The timetable in the directive is faster than that agreed under the Montreal Protocol. The U.S. Government actively opposed early drafts, which proposed phase-outs of HCFCs by 2001 without yielding appreciable environmental benefits. The existing Regulation required the air-conditioning industry to phase out its use of HCFCs by 2001 while most other HCFC uses may continue until 2004. Small (100 kW) fixed air conditioners and heat pump units have been exempted from the initial phase-out. The European Commission introduced its Climate Change Program in 2001 and is expected to issue approximately 10 new directives in order to implement the program. The Commission’s annual progress report on greenhouse emissions assesses the actual and projected progress of Member States toward fulfilling their emission commitments under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. Available data show that by 2010, EC emissions will have decreased by 4.7 percent, leaving a gap of 3.3 percent to the Kyoto target. Consequently, most Member States are in the process of planning additional policies to limit emissions. The U.S. business community will monitor Commission and Member State activity closely and carefully examine new directives for the impacts onbusiness.

Additional Information on Member State Practices

Some EU Member States have their own national practices regarding standards, testing, labeling, and certification. A brief discussion of the additional national practices of concern to the United States follows:

Austria: Austria became the second EU nation after Denmark to ban a range of uses of the three fluorinated gases (F-gases) controlled under the Kyoto protocol on climate change. Under an ordinance that took effect on November 22, 2002, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) will be prohibited from use in new sprays, solvents and fire extinguishers beginning in mid-2003. Their use in foams will be phased out between mid- 2003 and the end of 2007. Use in new refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment will also be banned by the end of 2007. The proposed ban appears to exempt production of HFCs for the export market. Serious objections, which were raised by the European Commission (EC) and some Member States, forced the government of Austria to re-draft and lessen the proposal, particularly with regard to export exemptions. The result will be examined by the EC again. The United States hopes that the Austrian government will consider alternate policy responses.

Denmark: On July 2, 2002, the Danish Environment Minister signed into effect a ban of HFCs, PFCs and SF6, with the first phase-out dates being January 1, 2006 (although new products using these chemicals in tires, spray cans and district heating pipes are not allowed after September 1, 2002). The ban covers the import, use, and sale, but does not cover HFCs for the export market. There are numerous exemptions provided, the most notable being cooling systems with between 150g and 10kg of HFC gas, mobile refrigeration units, vehicle airconditioning units and vaccine coolers. According to U.S. industry, if the ban were lifted, U.S. exports would increase by less than $10 million based on current export levels and exemptions in the ban. However, the existence of the ban could stimulate similar initiatives in larger European markets. The Danish Environment and Energy Minister in November 2000 signed an Executive Order banning (as of December 1, 2000) the import and marketing (but not export) of certain products containing lead over the next four years. The ban is at odds with the EU Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (CSTEE) report on lead that concluded that there are no scientific grounds for the Danish ban. Products for which viable alternatives do not exist, for example car batteries, are not affected by the ban. U.S. industry estimates that if the ban were lifted, U.S. exports would increase by less than $10 million based on current export levels. 

Finland: A ban on the importation and sale of new appliances containing HCFC was imposed on January 1, 2000 and remains in place. The importation of the chemical HCFC is allowed when used for maintenance of old appliances using HCFC. New HCFC compounds used for maintenance of refrigeration equipment will be banned as of 2010 and use of all HCFC compounds, including recycled compounds, will be banned as of 2015. 

France: National standards impose restrictions on the import of U.S. products in several areas, including enriched flour, bovine genetics, and exotic meats. French regulations prohibit the import of any products made with flour enriched with vitamins, since added vitamins are permitted only in dietetic food products. Current French government marketing controls and regulations restrict trade in bovine semen and embryos. Prior to import, a license must be obtained from the French Customs service and approved by the M inistry of Agriculture. Imports of exotic meats are prohibited by the French government unless authorized by a special waiver. Imports of alligator meat are the subject of ongoing discussions with the French Veterinary Service.

Germany: In late 2002, the German Environment Ministry submitted a proposal for public consideration regarding reduction and eventual elimination (over 10 years or more) of HFCs, PFCs and SF6s. The proposal is in early stages of review within the German government. A meeting involving the Economic Ministry, Environment Ministry, non-governmental groups and industry representatives was planned for late 2002 or early 2003 to discuss the proposal. The Environment Ministry foresees a first draft of proposed regulations to be delivered midway through 2003.